Pradeep Singh @ Pradeep Kumar S/o Late Rameshwar Singh, R/o Sector 8/C, Quarter No.2291 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, and
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2150 of 2016 ------ Pradeep Singh @ Pradeep Kumar S/o Late Rameshwar Singh, R/o Sector 8/C, Quarter No.2291, Post Office-Sector 9 and Police Station- Harla, District-Bokaro. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and … Petitioner 2. Dhananjay Singh @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Rameshwar Singh, R/o Quarter No.2291, Sector 8/C, Post Office- Sector 9 and Police Station-Harla, District-Bokaro. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate : Mrs. Chainika, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 despite repeated calls. 3. 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 and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro with C1 C.P Case No.296/2015 whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Cr. M.P. No.2150 of 2016 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused-Bank Manager has got the property purchased by the mother of the petitioner, who is also the mother of the complainant, mortgaged with the bank as collateral security against a loan granted in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, statement of solemn affirmation and statement of inquiry witnesses, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner as well as the co-accused Sanjay Singh for having committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false, the petitioner is the younger brother of the complainant. The common mother of the petitioner and the complainant; is residing with the petitioner. The petitioner takes care of the requirement of their mother. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mortgage was created with the consent of the mother. The mother of the petitioner has no grievance in respect of the said mortgage. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for loan was made by the petitioner and the complainant as per the joint decision of them as well as their mother. The signatures for the loan were put by both the petitioner and the complainant, as required by the bank authorities, as the property is the joint property. As the loan became a non-performing asset, notice under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the Bank on 13.11.2013 and, thereafter, the complainant had filed this case in the year 2015, just to save his skin. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the total sanctioned loan of 20 lakhs, the petitioner has used 9.8 lakhs and 10.2 lakhs have been used by the complainant. 2 Cr. M.P. No.2150 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation of any cheating and dishonest inducement of anybody in parting with any property by playing any deception, so even though the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner; hence, it is submitted that the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that allegation made against the petitioner is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are as follows:- 1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by 2. deceiving him. (a) The persons so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the persons so induced to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and (c) in cases covered by second part of clause (a), the act or omission should be one which caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind or property, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mubarak Ali Vs. State reported in AIR 1957 SC 857. 3 Cr. M.P. No.2150 of 2016 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of anybody nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of dishonestly inducing anybody to deliver any property and in the absence of these essential ingredients, to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, is not made out. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, this is a fit case where the prayer as made in this Cr.M.P be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro with C1 C.P Case No.296/2015, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. 12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim reliefs granted vide order dated 23.08.2018 and 23.01.2024, are vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of September, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj 4 Cr. M.P. No.2150 of 2016