The High Court
Case Details
With 1 Cr.M.P. No. 567 of 2010 Cr.M.P. No. 568 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 567 of 2010 Dilip Kumar Verma … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Ram Bilas Prasad With … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 568 of 2010 Rajesh Kumar Verma … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Ram Bilas Prasad ----- … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate (In both cases) For the State Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-567/2010) Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-568/2010) ----- 09/30.11.2023 Heard Mr. Vibhor Mayank and Ms. Oishi Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. These petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2009/23.12.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Lalpur P.S. Case No.90 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.1795 of 2009, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The order framing charge dated 08.04.2022 was subsequently challenged by way of filing I.A. Nos. 4034 of 2022 and 4035 of 2022, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022. Thus, the order framing charge dated 08.04.2022 is also under challenge in these petitions. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that Suryav Kumar Verma, Rajesh Kumar Verma and Dilip Kumar Verma along with Jitendra Mahato With 2 Cr.M.P. No. 567 of 2010 Cr.M.P. No. 568 of 2010 have taken Rs.1,00,000/- from the informant on 12.02.2002 on entering into an agreement of sale with regard to land measuring 30 decimals and further between the year 2002-2004, they have taken Rs.13 Lacs on the pretext of selling the said land to the informant and his daughter, but Suryav Kumar Verma failed to execute the sale deed even after receiving the said amount. It was further alleged that the daughter of the informant lodged a case in Jamshedpur wherein Suryav Kumar Verma undertook to pay the said amount in installments of Rs.1 Lac per month, but after three months, Suryav Kumar Verma died. It was also alleged that when the informant approached Rajesh Kumar Verma and Dilip Kumar Verma for payment of the balance amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by them and on pressure being given, a cheque of Rs.5 Lacs was issued. It was further alleged that the accused persons refused to make the subsequent payments and when the cheque so issued by them was placed before the banker, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the present case was lodged against the petitioners. 4. Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police has mechanically conducted investigation and submitted charge- sheet against the petitioners under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Court has taken cognizance without applying judicial mind. He further submits that the case is arising out of an agreement between one Suryav Kumar Verma, who was the brother of these petitioners and Ram Bilas Prasad, who is the informant. He also submits that the agreement is between the brother of the petitioners and the informant and unnecessarily, the petitioners have been made accused. He With 3 Cr.M.P. No. 567 of 2010 Cr.M.P. No. 568 of 2010 further submits that for registration of the sale deed, the present case has been lodged. By way of referring photo copy of the cheques, he submits that the entire amount was paid to Late Suryav Kumar Verma. He submits that earlier one case was filed against Late Suryav Kumar Verma and he died and, thereafter, the present case has been lodged against the petitioners, who happened to be brothers of Late Suryav Kumar Verma. He submits that the entire case is civil in nature, however, the learned Court has taken cognizance. 5. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No.567 of 2010 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. No.568 of 2010 submit that the charge-sheet is submitted and, thereafter, the learned Court has taken cognizance and charge has also been framed. 6. The Court has gone through the documents on the record. The contents of the FIR suggest that there was an agreement between Late Suryav Kumar Verma and Ram Bilas Prasad for sale of certain land and the cheques are issued in favour of Late Suryav Kumar Verma. In the FIR itself, it is stated that Late Suryav Kumar Verma was refunding the amount in form of installments of Rs.1 Lac per month and after three months, he has left for his heavenly abode and that is why, the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioners, which clearly suggests that if any case is made out against the petitioners, that is under the provision of the Specific Relief Act, whereas, criminal case has been filed against the petitioners and they have been implicated in the present case and pursuant to that, they are facing trial. With 4 Cr.M.P. No. 567 of 2010 Cr.M.P. No. 568 of 2010 7. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and another, reported in [(2019) 9 SCC 148], wherein, at paragraph 13, it has been held as under: “13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” 8. The amount was paid by the informant for purchase of the land to Late Suryav Kumar Verma and he has already started to refund the amount and in the meantime, he has left for his heavenly abode and, thereafter, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioners, who happened to be brothers of Late Suryav Kumar Verma. In view of that, there is no sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is made out. 9. The Court finds that the order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2009/ 23.12.2009 is also not in accordance with law. The word cognizance and name of the transferring Court are filled up in blank space, which suggests that there is non-application of judicial mind. With 5 Cr.M.P. No. 567 of 2010 Cr.M.P. No. 568 of 2010 10. There is no doubt that the charge has already been framed, however, if the case is made out to quash the entire criminal proceedings, at any stage the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in (AIR 1960 SC 866). 11.
Decision
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 21.12.2009/ 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and the order framing charge dated 08.04.2022 in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.90 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.1795 of 2009, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are quashed. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 13. It is made clear that if any civil case is there, that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudiced to this order. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)