1. Ram Yatan Choudhary 2. Anup Kumar Tiwary v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. 899 of 2018 1. Ram Yatan Choudhary 2. Anup Kumar Tiwary Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Ramula Devi …….. …….Petitioners …… Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Sahani and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocates 06/Dated: 22/01/2024 Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Sahani assisted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 02.02.2018 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 101/2017 pending in the Court learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the accused no.-1 was the owner of the land situated at village Hesal, District- Ranchi, bearing Khata No.- 24. Plot No.- 836, Sub Plot No.- 836/ D-II, Area-3 Katha, 12 Chhatank, 26 sq. feet. That it is further alleged that the Accused no. 1 has executed power of attorney in favour of Raghubir Prasad Jaiswal on 20.04.1982. It is alleged that the Accused no.-1 and his power of attorney holder approached the complainant for sale of aforesaid land and finally on 07.07.1983 a sale deed was executed in favour of complainant and others by the power of attorney holder. After execution of sale deed the complainant came in possession of said land upon which she constructed 8 rooms and boundary wall. It is further alleged that the Accused no.-1 in conspiracy with 2 Accused no.- 2 again executed power of attorney on 2.08.2008 in favour of Accused no. 2. The complainant after getting knowledge about execution of Power of Attorney has sent a legal notice on 19.01.2017 which was received by the accused persons on 23.01.2017. After receipt of notice the accused persons demolished the rooms and boundary wall and took away the belongings of the complainant. Thereafter on 1.02.2017 the accused persons came at the house of the complainant and forcibly entered into the house and assaulted the husband of the complainant and extended threats. 4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 through its power of attorney holder i.e. petitioner no.2 has filed a Title Suit No. 419 of 2008 before the Court of learned Sub- Judge-I, Ranchi for declaration that the power of attorney alleged to have executed in favour of Raghubir Prasad Jaiswal on 20.04.1982 is forged and fabricated documents and further for a declaration that the sale deed bearing no. 7378 dated 07.07.1983 executed in favour of the complainant is a forged and fabricated document as the same has been executed on the basis of forged power of attorney. He further submits that in the Title Suit the complainant herein has already appeared and filed written statement on 15.03.2010. He further submits that so far land in question is still running in the name of petitioner no.1 and holding is also running in the name of petitioner no.1 who is paying holding tax, water tax and rent to the government and to buttress his argument, he refers to annexure-3 wherein receipts to that effect have been annexed. He submits that title suit was filed in the year, 2008 and the present case has been filed in the year, 2017. He submits that even in the complaint case there is suppression of pendency of title suit between the parties. He further submits that maliciously the present case has been filed. 5. The said argument is being resisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned 3 counsel for the O.P. No.2 on the ground that there are other allegations apart from that i.e. assault etc. and in view of that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He further submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage and the entire argument may be appreciated by the learned court. 6. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State submits that on the complaint the learned court has taken cognizance. 7. The Court finds that admittedly the title suit bearing Title Suit No. 419 of 2008 is pending between the parties wherein prayer is made for declaration of sale deed dated 07.07.1983 in favour of the complainant as null and void and prayer is made for declaration of power of attorney on the basis of which the petitioner no.2 has executed the sale deed in favour of O.P. No.2 as forged one. The said title suit was filed in the year, 2008 whereas the present complaint case has been filed in the year, 2017. Further even the complaint case the complainant has not disclosed the pendency of title suit which suggests that maliciously the present case has been filed. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Usha Chakraborty and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.” 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 wherein para 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein before a competent civil court which obviously is the causative incident for the respondent's allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants. We will deal with it further and also its impact a little later. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore would revea! that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitut the alleged offences. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on the respondent so also, they did not reveal a case that the appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself or another or by putting him under such fear or injury, dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or valuable security. The same is the 4 position with respect to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC. The ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature, The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in Paramjit Batra (supra), the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment.” 8. Thus Court finds that if any dispute is there that is civil in nature as till date the holding and other property receipts are being issued in favour of the petitioner no.1. Further to put the criminal law on motion by examining two enquiry witnesses is a serious thing as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Limited and Anr. vrs. Special Judicial Magistrate” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. It appears that in this background what has been stated in the solemn affirmation with regard to assault is only to make the case against the petitioners. 9. In view of above the Court finds that to allow the criminal proceeding will amount the abuse of process of law and accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 02.02.2018 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 101/2017 pending in the Court learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro, are quashed. 10. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any,
Decision
stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated. 11. The said suit shall be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this order. Satyarthi/ ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)