1. Arun Pandey, aged about 48 years, 2. Satya Narayan Pandey, aged about 46 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shiv Kumar Pandey, s/o Late Teko Pandey, r/o
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.595 of 2020 ------ 1. Arun Pandey, aged about 48 years, 2. Satya Narayan Pandey, aged about 46 years, 3. Ajit Pandey, aged about 42 years, 4. Sujit Pandey, aged about 38 years, 5. Binod Pandey, aged about 35 years, 6. Mithlesh Pandey, aged about 33 years, All s/o Late Basdev Pandey, r/o Jamua, PO Kumharlalo, PS Pirtand, District Giridih. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shiv Kumar Pandey, s/o Late Teko Pandey, r/o Jamua, PO Kumharlalo, PS Pirtand, District Giridih. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
failed to produce any document to prima facie make out a case of bonafide land dispute between the parties. 11. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High 5 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2020 Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)” 12. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr. ) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is insufficient to quash the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih in connection with C.C. Case No.1893 of 2013. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 15. In view of the disposal of this Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 11.05.2022 stands vacated. 16. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of September, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 6 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2020
Arguments
: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate : Mr. Prabhu D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. : Ms. Sujit Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ 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 the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Giridih in connection with C.C. Case No.1893 of 2013 involving the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the 1 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2020 said case in now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have cut paddy from the land of the complainant situated over Plot No.122, Khata No.24 of Mouza- Jamua, P.S.- Pirtand, District- Giridih. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said land belongs to the petitioners and Misc. Case No.16/12-13 was initiated by the petitioner No.6 against the son of complainant. Vide order dated 05.04.2013, Circle Officer, Pirtand passed order to cancel the jamabandi. It is next submitted that Misc. Case No.02/13-14 was initiated before the L.R.D.C., Giridih by the petitioner No.6 against the son of complainant in which the L.R.D.C., Giridih observed that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and the complainant suppressing the said facts, has filed this case and upon perusal of the complainant, statement of solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that as bonafide land dispute is going on between the parties. Hence, the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 5. 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 as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P. and submit that the petitioners have made a false averments in paragraph-7 of this Cr.M.P. that Khata No.24 and Plot No.122 belongs to them; whereas the same in fact belongs to the complainant. It is next submitted that the Circle Officer, Pirtand initiated the proceeding of Misc. Case No.16/12-13 on submission of false and fabricated bond-paper by 2 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2020 the petitioner No.6 namely Mithlesh Pandey and false documents were made by the petitioner No.6 namely Mithlesh Pandey by creating documents purportedly to have been written and signed by the complainant stating therein that the complainant is relinquishing his share of 5.24 acres of land of Khata No.24 which has been purchased by the complainant; though in fact the complainant never relinquished in the said land nor ever signed any such bond paper. It is next submitted that the Annexure Nos.5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.03.2022 filed by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., are also forged documents manufactured by the petitioners in connivance with the pairvikar namely Jeera Devi and has been filed before this court for misleading this court. It is further submitted that the document at page No.34 of the brief of this case, is also a forged one as no such order on 18.08.2015 in Misc. Case No.02/13-14 has been passed by the L.R.D.C., Giridih. 6. It is then submitted that the petitioner No.6 not only forged this document but also forged a forwarding letter annexing therewith the forged order-sheet purportedly written by the L.R.D.C., Giridih to the Circle Officer, Pirtand and when the matter came to light, the L.R.D.C., Giridih namely Ms. Namita Kumari lodged an F.I.R. basing upon which the Pirtand P.S. Case No.33 of 2017 has been registered against the petitioner No.6 involving the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code for manufacturing a forged order-sheet and creating forged documents, purported to have been written by the L.R.D.C., Giridih to the Circle Officer, Pirtand and in that case, police after investigation of the case found the allegation against the petitioner No.6 to be true and submitted the charge-sheet on 26.07.2017, the 3 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2020 copy of which has been kept at Annexure-3 of the counter-affidavit filed by the complainant in this case. 7. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.6 has again manufactured a false document purportedly written by the complainant and submitted the same in First Appeal Case No.105 of 2020 under R.T.I. Act pending before the Additional Collector, Giridih though the complainant has never written any such letter to the Additional Collector, Giridih. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 and submits that a party who has misled the court in passing an order in its favour, is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. A person, who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation and if there is any suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then, High Court will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) By L.Rs & Another vs. Government of Karnataka & Another reported in (1991) 3 SCC 261 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the discretionary relief can be refused on the ground of suppression of material facts by the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 4 Cr. M.P. No.595 of 2020 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are not paying any rent to the State in respect of the place of occurrence- land in question, nor the place of occurrence land stands recorded in the name of any of the petitioners of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Except the order of the Circle Officer, Pirtand and the L.R.D.C., Giridih; which the opposite party No.2 submits are forged documents and in respect of which undisputedly the Pirtand P.S. Case No.33 of 2017 has been registered and in which charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner No.6; after the allegations against him are found to be true, the petitioners have no other document in support of their claim over the place of occurrence land. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners