'Putting Criminal Law In Motion Against Accused By Examining Only One Or Two Enquiry Witnesses Is Deprecated': Jharkhand HC

The petitioner had sought the quashing of criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance, related to a case pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad. The charges involved offenses under Section 341/342/406/506/119/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4/5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint, initially filed against the petitioner and others, led to the registration of offenses following a Section 156(3) procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The subsequent police investigation, however, resulted in a final report wherein the petitioner was not recommended for trial. The petitioner's counsel contended that the case was falsely filed.

Contrary to this, the respondent's counsel argued that despite the police not recommending trial in the charge sheet, the court acknowledged a protest petition, justifying its cognizance against the petitioner.

After considering the arguments, the Court observed that the complaint was rooted in the complainant's dissatisfaction over the non-allotment of a quarter. It noted that the police had exonerated the petitioner during the investigation.

The Court observed, "In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the solemn affirmation of the complainant, it is crystal clear that for a quarter which was allotted to his mother-in-law, an application was moved by the complainant for allotting the said quarter in his favour and somehow that quarter was not allotted to the complainant and, therefore, the present complaint case has been filed."

"The police has exonerated the petitioner after investigation, however, on the protest petition, the learned Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner," the Court added.

However, the Court expressed disapproval of initiating criminal proceedings based on the examination of only one or two inquiry witnesses.

“To put a criminal law in motion by way of examining only one or two enquiry witnesses is deprecated,” the Court reiterated while citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others [(1998) 5 SCC 749].

In light of the facts and analysis, the Court concluded that the entire criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance, dated 27.06.2013, were to be quashed. The decision aligns with the Court's emphasis on a comprehensive investigation before setting the criminal law in motion.

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rishi Pallava

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Achinto Sena and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 88

Case Title: Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and anr.

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2013

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement