(2017:JHHC:28479) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2670 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2670 of 2017 ------ 1. Ajay Kumar Jha S/o Umesh Chandra Jha, 2. Kishore Kumar Jha S/o Late Vishwanath Jha Both resident of Laxmi Pustakalaya Campus, Opposite Party Khuda Bux Library, P.O.- Patna, P.S.- Pirbahore, Ashok Raj Patha, Patna-800004 … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Irfan Khan S/o Mr. Sagir Khanm Proprietor- S.K. Book House, resident of Phush Bunglow, P.O.- Bhaga, P.S.- Jorapokhar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Alok Kr. Dubey, Amicus Curiae ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings as well as order taking cognizance dated 25.07.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.775 of 2017 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a distributor of Arvind Prakashan Private Limited and the petitioners being the persons responsible for the business of the said Arvind Prakashan Private Limited, have cheated the complainant by raising a bill of Rs.5,00,000/- against the book shop (2017:JHHC:28479) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2670 of 2017 of the complainant in the name and style of S.K. Book House, Dhanbad for the books they had supplied to Gaya; but not to the said book house of Dhanbad of the complainant and induced the complainant to pay Rs.5.5 lakhs for sampling the books and also for paying the security money for school development funds on behalf of the supplier of books; with assurance to supply the books but petitioners have cheated by not supplying the books and additionally they caused simple hurt to the complainant by assaulting him with kicks and fists blows and also criminally intimidated the complainant and also intentionally insulted the complainant with intention to provoke breach of peace. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found a prima facie for the offences punishable under Section 417, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in C.P. Case No.775 of 2017 and passed orders for issue of summons to the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the place of occurrence is few kilometers away from the police station but no First Information Report or any intimation was given by the complainant to the police station; which goes to show that the complaint case is a false one. It is next submitted that for the dishonoured cheques issued by the complainant, Complaint Case No.1808 (C)/2017 and Complaint Case No.3248 (C)/2017 have been filed against the opposite party No.2/ complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submits that complaint has been filed with a view to harass the innocent petitioners and is a (2017:JHHC:28479) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2670 of 2017 malicious prosecution. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint instead of ordering for issuance of summons, in most mechanical manner without application of his judicial mind. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae appearing in this case who has been appointed in this case vide order dated 28.03.2025, on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that in fact Complaint Case No.1808 (C)/2017 and Complaint Case No.3248(C)/2017 are the malicious prosecutions; because after institution of this complaint case for wrecking vengeance, the petitioners have misused the cheques issued by the complainant for the purpose of security only; against default of any payment made by him, and the petitioners with malafide intention have instituted those cases to harass the complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of cheating and also voluntarily causing hurt as well as intentionally insulting the complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case, to provoke breach of peace. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae further submit that whether or not a proceeding is malicious one, can only be determined at the final adjudication of the case and this case of the complainant cannot be nipped in the bud at this nascent stage. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. (2017:JHHC:28479) 4 Cr. M.P. No.2670 of 2017 8. 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 it is a settled principle of law that whether a criminal proceeding was malicious or not, is not required to be evaluated at the stage of issuing summons and the same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 paragraph- 08 of which reads as under :- 08. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that they being responsible persons for the business of Arvind Prakashan Private Limited, cheated the complainant by inducing him to invest money for sampling of books and to pay the security money and school development fund of various schools on behalf of them; with the promise of supplying the books but did not supply the books to the complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case. So, this prima facie goes to show that they have cheated and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to part with substantial amount of money. Further, there is direct and specific (2017:JHHC:28479) 5 Cr. M.P. No.2670 of 2017 allegation against the petitioners of causing simple hurt to the complainant by assaulting him with kicks and slaps. Besides, there is also allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting the complainant to provoke breach of peace. 10. Under such circumstances, in view of the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that if the contents of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety then the offence for which prima facie case has been found by the learned Magistrate, is made out. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that keeping in view the settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be sparingly used so far as nipping the criminal proceeding at the bud at the initial stage is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners in the instant Cr.M.P. is to be allowed by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 12. Before parting, this Court records the appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. Alok Kumar Dubey- learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed in this case and the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to Mr. Alok Kumar Dubey- learned Amicus Curiae on production of a web copy of this judgment. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of April, 2025 AFR/ Animesh