Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.2715 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.2 being the sister and the petitioner No.1 being the husband of the petitioner No.2 along with the mother of the complainant sold the joint property left behind by the father of the complainant to other persons behind the back of the complainant. There is specific allegation against that on 05.06.2019 at 6:00 pm, Suryakant Yadav and Baban Yadav along with Goonda elements abused the complainant and assaulted her and there is general and vague allegation that all the accused persons cheated, abused and assaulted the complainant; without mentioning any specific date, time and place. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found prima facie case of the said offences, as already indicated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2023 INSC 683 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2023 INSC 1088 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in paragraph-7 that the bald statement that the victim was beaten up is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under 323 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of any other material in the record to support alleged causation of hurt. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The allegation of assault is specifically upon Suryakant Yadav and Baban Yadav along with the Goonda elements accompanying them but there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners. The bald statement that all the accused persons assaulted the complainant does not bear any time and place of occurrence nor is there any averment regarding causation of hurt to the complainant. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and in the absence of any specific occurrence, the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioners, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is reference of only one date i.e., 05.06.2019 regarding abuse and assault being perpetrated upon the complainant and the specific allegation of the occurrence of that date is against Suryakant Yadav and Baban Yadav and the Goonda elements accompanying them. There is no direct allegation against the petitioners of either causing any hurt or criminally intimidating the complainant or wrongfully restraining her. In the absence of the same, keeping in view the admitted acrimony between the complainant and the petitioners of this case, because of the alleged sell of the property left behind by the father of the complainant; by the mother of the complainant, in association of the petitioners and others, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the bald allegation that all the accused persons had assaulted and abused the complainant without mentioning any date, time or place thereof has been made with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance and to harass the petitioners and in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioners, none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is made out against either of the two petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal prosecution against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.2715 of 2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.2715 of 2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.
9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
