The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1184 of 2017 Arun Kumar Agarwala @ Arun Agrawal….. Versus .... …Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Subhash Singh With Cr.M.P. No. 1565 of 2016 ….. Opposite Parties 1.Jagdish Singh 2. Bindeshwar Singh ….. .... …Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate ------ Ms. Aanya, Advocate Ms. Niharika Nidhi, Advocate ( In Cr.M.P. No.1184/2017) Mr. Ajay Sah, Advocate ( In Cr.M.P. No. 1565/2016) For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ( In Cr.M.P. No.1184/2017) Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. ( In Cr.M.P. No. 1565/2016) For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate (in both the cases) 7/ Dated:-03.08.2023 Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and Mr. Ajay Sah, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. At the outset, Mr. Ajay Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1565 of 2016 submits that petitioner no. 1 namely, Jagdish Singh has left for his heavenly abode and in view of that he submits that the said petition confines to petitioner no. 2 only. 3. In both the petitions common question of facts and law are involved and same F.I.R. as well as order taking cognizance are under challenge that is why both the petitions are heard together 2 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Initially both the petitions have been filed challenging F.I.R. being Chandwara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 534 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma and subsequently, cognizance has been taken and that is why I.As. have been filed which were allowed vide order dated 21.06.2023 and the petitioners were directed to file consolidated amended petition and thus cognizance order dated 17.11.2017 has also been challenged, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class, Koderma. 5. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that the mother of the informant namely, Smt. Khiro Kunwari purchased certain piece of land from one Guru Sahay Singh, son of Chulhan Singh vide registered Sale Deed No. 4819 dated 19.06.1957. It was further alleged that the mother of the informant purchased total 15.26 Acres of land out of which 3.54 Acres of land were pertaining to Khata No. 2 and remaining 11.82 Acres of land were pertaining to Khata No.4. It was further alleged that the mother of the Informant sold 10.32 Acres of land purchased by her to different persons and remaining 4.94 Acres of land still remained with the mother of the Informant, and she is duly paying rent in respect of the said land. It was further alleged that one Jagdish Singh and Bindeshwar Singh, sons of Late Durga Singh, who were not the descendents of Khatiyani Raiyat, in conspiracy with each other, sold a piece of land of Khata No. 4 having an area of 40.5 Decimals belonging to the mother of the Informant, vide registered Sale Deed 3 No. 3640 dated 07.03.2002 to one Gyan Chandra Agarwal, Director of Laxmi Steel Factory. It has been alleged that the Sale Deed executed in favour of Gyan Chandra Agarwal is false and fabricated Sale Deed. It was further alleged that, later on, son of Gyan Chandra Agarwal, namely Anupam Agarwal executed a Sale Deed in favour of Arun Agarwala, the present petitioner, on 30.04.2010 and, after knowing the said fact, the Informant lodged the instant First Information Report. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Chandwara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014 dated 12.5.2014, for the alleged offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. was registered. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1184 of 2017 submits that from perusal of F.I.R. it transpires that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever with the alleged transfer of land made by Jagdish Singh and Bindeshwar Singh sons of Durga Singh in favour of Gyan Chandra Agarwal vide Sale Deed No. 3640 dated 07.03.2002 and on the contrary from the F.I.R. itself it is evident that the petitioner is the second purchaser of the land in question which is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner on 30.04.2010 after expiry of more than 8 years from the alleged sale made in the year, 2002. He further submits that the mother of the informant lodged a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 274 of 2012 pursuant to that Chandwara P.S. Case No. 41 of 2012 in which police submitted final form exonerating the petitioners and thereafter protest petition was filed which was numbered as Complaint case bearing C.C. No. 727 of 2012 and the learned court after looking into the Solemn Affirmation and enquiry witnesses has been pleased to dismiss the said protest petition. He 4 submits that thereafter for the same facts present case has been lodged by son of the complainant. He submits that for the same case one of the parties has filed Original Suit No. 25 of 2016 which is pending before the learned Sub-Judge-I, Koderma. He submits that even if any case is made out that is civil in nature and no criminality is made out as petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question from Gyan Chandra Agarwal by deed dated 30th April, 2010. 7. Mr. Ajay Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1565 of 2016 adopted the submission advanced by Mr. Gadodia and further added by way of submitting that earlier after dismissal of complainant case, another case was filed as Chandwara P.S. Case No. 96 of 2013 in which police submitted final form and the petitioner has been exonerated. He submits in that case no protest petition was filed and now Chandwara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014 has been filed on the same facts in which final form has also been submitted and the petitioner has not been sent up for trial however on the application of Superintendent of Police, Koderma, before the learned court further investigation was opened. 8. Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegations of sale of double land and that is supported in view of report of Circle Officer and in that view of the matter the present case is maintainable. He further submits that the earlier case was arising out complaint and the present case is police case. He submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage. 9. Mr. Jitendra Pandey and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsels for the State submit that police has investigated the matter in view of the direction of the learned Court. 5 10. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of materials annexed with both the petitions. It is an admitted fact that the mother of the informant earlier filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 274 of 2012 pursuant to which Chandwara P.S. Case No. 41 of 2012 has been registered in which police submitted final form exonerating the petitioners and on the basis of protest petition learned court has also not taken cognizance pursuant thereafter the informant has filed Chandwara P.S. Case No. 96 of 2013 in which final form has been submitted exonerating the petitioners and against that final form no protest petition was filed and subsequently present case bearing Chandwara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2014 has been filed in which also final form was submitted and after application of Superintendent of Police further investigation was going on. This fact has also not been denied by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as State. However, it has been added that more land has been sold. If for the same cause of action those proceedings are there. Final forms are there. Further filing of the case for the same cause of action is a malicious prosecution. Further Original Suit No. 25 of 2016 is already pending and if O.P. No.2 is able to prove his case the learned court can pass appropriate judgment/decree. It appears that for a civil wrong criminal case has been filed. Further the case of the petitioners is fully covered with the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. state of Bihar and Another” (2009) 8 SCC 751) (Paras 20, 21, 23). 11. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 51 6 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 534 of 2014 including cognizance order dated 17.11.2017, are quashed. 12. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. Interim orders passed in respective cases are vacated. 13. It is made clear that pending suit shall be decided on its own merit without prejudice by this order. Satyarthi/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)