Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21066 (JHR)

Anil Prasad Jaiswal v. State Of Jharkhand

2026-01-07

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 690 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed summoning order against the petitioner as well. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner requested the informant to invest Rs.6,00,000/- to open a Marriage Hall in a land belonging to his wife. The informant agreed for the same and an agreement was made between the parties. It is alleged that the intention of the petitioner was bad and he is not paying back the money to the informant. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet; basing upon which, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148 and submits that therein in para-15 of which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cautioned against criminalizing civil disputes such as breach of contractual obligations. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Sagar @ Ajay Prem Sagar & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3781 of 2022 dated 28th June, 2023 and submits that in the facts of that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraphs-13 and 26 of which read as under:- “13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge- sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant 1's son. No reference to this charge-sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200 CrPC filed by Respondent 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No. 158 of 2012. The wife's statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. [Ram Dhan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 536 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 237] ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 ] ). 26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis supplied)” and submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis supplied)” and submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand; in this respect, this Court in the facts of that case also relied upon the judgment of Kapil Agarwal & Others vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524 , para-20 and 21 of which reads as under:- “20. Under the circumstances, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants. 21. We are not expressing anything on merits whether, any case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged in the Section 156(3) CrPC application as the same is pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is to take call on the same. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellant- accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/Section 482 CrPC and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant has not come with clean hands; by suppressing the material facts that the petitioner, in fact, issued a cheque of Rs.5,47,555/- before lodging this FIR on 25.02.2022 in favour of the informant, in payment of his dues and on 23.02.2022, the informant filed Complaint Case No. 786 of 2022, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-2 of the brief, in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is, in fact, a civil dispute and the admitted case of informant is that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.5,47,555/-, towards payment of his outstanding dues. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is, in fact, a civil dispute and the admitted case of informant is that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.5,47,555/-, towards payment of his outstanding dues. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is a purely civil dispute and there is no case of entrustment of any money or property to the petitioner; as admittedly the money was invested for the purpose of business. Nor is there any allegation of cheating or deception played since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.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 petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition but did not dispute the fact that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.5,47,555/-; for dishonour of which, the informant filed the Complaint Case No. 786 of 2022 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad before lodging this FIR but submits that both the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 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 the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.5,47,555/- before lodging this FIR in favour of the complainant-opposite party No.2. The complainant-opposite party No.2 filed the complaint case, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before lodging of this FIR but both these facts have been suppressed by the petitioner in his First Information Report, submitted by him to the police basing upon which the law has been set on more motion. So, it is crystal clear that the informant-opposite party No.2 has not made full and true disclosure of the facts and he has given a cloak of criminal case to a purely civil dispute regarding business transaction; that too upon suppression of the material facts, obviously for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. 9. So, it is crystal clear that the informant-opposite party No.2 has not made full and true disclosure of the facts and he has given a cloak of criminal case to a purely civil dispute regarding business transaction; that too upon suppression of the material facts, obviously for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law; as the same has been filed by suppressing the material facts. Hence, in view of the settled principle of law as already discussed above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 690 of 2024, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 690 of 2024, is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.