GOVIND PRASAD KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 31,2020

Govind Prasad Kejriwal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NATIONAL BANK OF OMAN VS. BARAKARA ABDUL AZIZ [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DIVYAJOT SINGH JENDU VS. MANIKARAN ANALYTICS LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2022-1-43] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.)Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc.No.30284 of 2011 by which the High Court has dismissed the said quashing petition preferred by the original accused and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 464 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC, original Accused has preferred the present appeal.
(2.)That the private respondent herein Gopal Prasad son of Shri Shyam S. Prasad, brother of one Ramesh Kumar ­ a partner of a firm called Kejriwal Films filed the criminal complaint being Complaint Case No.464 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh against the appellant herein ­ one of the partner of Kejriwal Films, for the offences under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506, 406, 452, 147, 148/34 IPC. The complaint reads as under:
"1. That the complainant is the brother of Ramesh Kumar, who is a partner of a firm called Kerjiwal Firms. The accused Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal is also a partner in the said firm. Both the accused persons are father and son by relation.

2. That the aforementioned Kejriwal Films has taken the Savera Chitra Mandir on lease and carry on their film business there, whose licence was taken in the name of Govind Prasad Kejriwal.

3. That in order to cause loss to the complainant's brother and his partner Satyanarayan, both the accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and thereby had surrendered the cinema filming licence before the District Magistrate. As such, the cinema filming has been closed since 5.2.2000 and the building has been locked. The complainant and his brother were looking after the building from outside. The complainant's brother is staying outside for the last some days.

4. That during the time of the occurrence, the complainant was going towards the market. When the complainant reached near the Savera Chitra Mandir, saw the gate open. Seeing the gates open, the complainant went inside the Savera Chitra Mandir and saw that the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balbhadra Prasad Kejriwal and 45 other unknown people have broke the lock of the cinema hall and its office and had kept their Maruti Car No. HR 51D 8974 inside. The accused Govind Prasad Kejriwal was putting the documents of the cinema hall in a baggage. The accused Balbhadra Prasad Kejriwal was removing the electric fan and other machines by some other people. The accused Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal himself was holding an electric starter in his hand.

5. That when the complainant objected, the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal gave a kick to the complainant and threatened him to kill. The other unknown accused persons pointed their pistol on the complainant and rove him away from the cinema hall.

6. That the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal kept the bag containing the documents in their car whose number is HR 51D 8974. The other accused persons removed the fan etc. and kept those in the car.

7. That the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal and two unknown accused persons went towards the market in their car. They asked their other people to put their new lock in the cinema hall and threw the old locks. Then the other accused persons came out of the hall and fled in an auto rickshaw towards the market.

8. That those accused persons, with ill intention, and cause loss to the complainant's brother and partner Ramesh Kumar and with the intention to misappropriate the properties of partnership firm had entered inside the cinema hall by breaking its locks and taken away all the valuable instruments. They had broken the old lock of the cinema hall and put new locks in it and caused damage inside the hall driving out the complainant from the premises.

9. That the complainant's brother had suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/ due this theft. There is possibility of causing irreparable loss on account of theft of important documents. The description of these documents can be known only when the complainant's brother arrives.

10. That after the occurrence, the complainant had gone to the local police station to lodge a report thereof. But the police did not lodge the report. Then the complainant went to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, but he did not accept the report of the complainant. There is illegal collusion between the police and the accused persons. Hence, it is being prayed to summon the accused persons and punish them adequately."

(3.)That the said complaint was filed on 19.12.2001. From the record it appears that prior thereto, a written report was lodged by the appellant herein Govind Prasad Kejriwal, against Ramesh Kumar and others for the offence under Section 379 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. filed the chargesheet against all the four accused persons including the complainant herein and even Ramesh Kumar for the offence under Section 379 IPC. That the Learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against all the accused persons including Original private respondent herein ­ original complainant under Section 379 IPC. That the said trial is pending. That the complaint filed by the private respondent ­ original complainant herein Gopal Prasad being Complaint No.464 of 2001 came to be dismissed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate vide Order dated 14.02.2003. That the Original complainant filed the Revision Application before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barh. Vide Order dated 01.12.2004, the Learned Sessions Judge, Barh allowed the said revision application and set aside the order passed by the Learned Magistrate dated 14.02.2003 and remanded the case back to the Learned Magistrate for further inquiry and to pass fresh order in accordance with law. That pursuant to the remand order, the complainant deposed one witness in support of his case. Thereafter the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.07.2005 had taken cognizance against the appellant herein under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC, against the order passed by the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 379 IPC, the appellant herein preferred quashing petition before the High Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.34168 of 2005. That vide order dated 16.05.2006, the High Court declined to interfere, however observed that the appellant is at liberty to move the Learned Lower Court. That thereafter brother of the original complainant ­ Ramesh Kumar filed a title suit against the appellant and the partnership firm for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. That the said suit came to be dismissed, against which the First Appeal was preferred by the said Ramesh Kumar which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2011. That Thereafter the appellant filed an application for discharge. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.08.2011 rejected the prayer of the appellant for discharge. That thereafter the appellant filed an application before the High Court for quashing of order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate rejecting the discharge application. Vide impugned Judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused to discharge the appellant and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.