The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1123 of 2019 1. Sanjay Satyanand Verma 2. Kunal Verma Versus ...... … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .…. … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI :Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate For the State For the O.P. No.2 : None : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. ------ 12/ 02.05.2024: Notice upon O.P. No.2 has been effected and appearance has been made by way of filing vakalatnama, however nobody appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2 2. On 22.01.2024 the matter was adjourned. On 29.01.2024 adjournment was taken on behalf of O.P. No.2. On 06.03.2024 again nobody appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity the matter was adjourned. Identical was the situation on 03.04.2024. On that date again the matter was adjourned and observation was made that if the O.P. No.2 will not appear on the next date of listing the matter shall be decided on merits in absence of O.P. No.2. On 10.04.2024 office of Mr. R.S. Mazumdar and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh pointed out that O.P. No.2 has taken ‘No Objection Certificate’ from their office and in view of that again the matter was further adjourned with a view to provide further one more opportunity to the O.P. No.2. Today the matter was again taken up however nobody appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2 and earlier observation was there that if the O.P. No.2 will not appear on the next date of listing the matter shall be decided on merits in absence of O.P. No.2. 3. Once ‘NOC’ was taken by the O.P. No.2 from the office of learned advocates it was incumbent upon him to make alternative arrangement to appear on his behalf as he is knowing the fact that the
Legal Reasoning
matter is pending before this Court inspite of that he has not done so which suggests that O.P. No.2 has lost interest in the matter as sufficient opportunity was provided to the O.P. No.2 in view of above this matter is being heard on merit in absence of O.P. No.2. -1- 4. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. 5. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2016 including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 326 of 2016 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 49 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. 6. Subsequently chargesheet was submitted in the matter which was challenged by way of I.A. No. 3478 of 2023 and the said I.A. was allowed by order dated 29.01.2024.Thus chargesheet is also under challenge. 7. The complaint case was filed which was sent by the learned Court under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and pursuant to that Jamtara P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 was registered on 19.04.2016 and the contents of F.I.R. is as under :- The accused claims to be Leasee of Rajmata daulat Kumari through late Dwarika Pd.Singh of lease hold property bearing Tauzi nol. 20, Khewat no. 1 of mouza Palgunj Estate, whereas his Lease has been terminated and to that effect he has been informed by giving legal notice through Regd. Post vide Pleader notice dated 16.11.2013, 5.9.2014 and 23.2.2015, 2.3.2015 by this complainant who is the eldest son of late Dwarika Pd. Singh. It is also important to note here that accused no.2 Kunal Verma has also been informed regarding the termination of lease through registered post and also personal receiving on 09.11.2014. It is further alleged that inspite of the fact that the accused persons were well acquainted that they were no more Leasee of Rajmata Daulat Kumari which they claim to be Leasee from Raja Dwarika Pd. Singh. The entire claims of both the O.Ps. Are false, bogus and illegal as after termination of Lease they are none. It is further alleged that complainant is Leasee of being the heirs of Rajmata Daulat Kumari as she was the Lease holder and after probate case the complainant and his brothers became the heirs of Rajmata Daulat Kumari. It is further alleged that accused no. 1 Sanjay Verma has secured 20 to 23 crores from the company M/s Vibrant coal ventures Pvt. Ltd.(a sister company of Videocon group) on his false plea that he is the owner of the Mines on the basis of invalid forged and fabricated paper and documents, as because the consideration amount in the form of the Demand Draft has not been -2- encashed and returned back to Sanjay Verma after the death of late Dwarika Pd. Singh. It is further alleged that when the complainant came to know about the misdeed of Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma then the complainant served the Petitioner served the three Advocate notices mentioning him to explain as to how he has entered into an agreement him to explain as to how he has entered into an agreement with M/s Vibrant coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd(a sister company of Videocon Group) and secured such a huge amount but the accused did not replied to the Advocate notices. Xerox copy of Memorandum of undertaking. Xerox copy of Advocate notices dt. 5.9.14 and 24.2.15, 2.3.15 are filed and marked as annexure 2A and 2B to the complaint. It is further alleged that the accused persons used to come in the house of the complainant at Jamtara and also used to visit Mines Area of Giridih under Palgunj Estate, Tauzi no. 20, Khewat no.1 and on the earlier days they also used to obtain the signatures on Blank stamp papers and papers of the complainant stating that the signature of petitioner and his brothers and sister is required to be filed in Mining Office and has obtained signature of the petitioner Nandgopal Singh and his brothers and sister on Blank stamp papers and other papers which they may use by converting the same as valuable documents. It is important to note herein that some important papers concerning to the Mines and Rajmata Daulat Kumari and Dwarika Pd. Singh are lying with Kunal Verma which he has obtained/taken by giving assurance to be used for the benefit of the Estate or for their benefit. It is further alleged that although there frauds tried to cover up their misdeed by sending three cheques of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs each as yearly rent but the complainant has refused to encash the cheques given by Sai International. It is further alleged that on 10th of June 2014 the accused no.1 (showing himself as sole proprietor) has entered into an Agreement with one M/s Vibrant coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. And realized 6.5 crores. It is further alleged that as per the available records, late Shri Dwarika Pd. Singh father of the complainant subleased 1103.5 acres of the Mines area to Sai International having its office at E-301, Silver Tower, Thakur complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400001, on 10.10.2009 The Sub lease got registered on 12.10.2009 and on same dated le. 12.10.2009 Sri Dwarika Pd. Singh died after long treatment procedure. The sub lease was given Sai International by late Shri Dwarika Pd. Singh for the time of Agreement with late Shri Dwarika Pd. Singh explained that Sai International is a Partnership Firm. -3- But, Sanjay Verma never presented any fact of genuine Registration or indentity of the firm to late Shri Dwarika Pd. Singh nor to any of the family members. It is further alleged that on 10.10.2013 Sanjay Verma entered into an agreement with Bakulesh T. Shah and he presented himself as the proprietor of the Sai International as well as the property of late Raja Dwarika Pd. Singh The fraud of Rs. 10.00 crores is made by Sanjay Verma and the most notorious and fraud Kunal Verma as the confirming party of this agreement Rs. 2.00 crores already transferred to the bank account of Sai International on 10.10.2013.This fact of change of the Partnership firm into a sole proprietorship firm also states the foul and fraud game of Sanjay Verma, Kunal Verma and their Associates, Further, on May 15, 2014 Sanjay Verma as sole proprietor of Sai International entered into a MoU with Bakulesh T Shah and Kunal Verma again became the confirming party in this MoU. This date, again Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma received Rs. 4.00 crores from Bakulesh T Shah on the revised terms and conditions of the prior Agreement of dt. 10.10.2013. It is further alleged that again on 10.6.2014 a Deed of Assignment of Lease is done between Sanjay Verma and M/s Vibrant coal ventures Pvt. Ltd. And the firm M/s Vibrant coal venturtes Pvt. Ltd. Came into the picture of the master fraud game, On 17.6.2014 the Shareholder Agreement of M/s Vibrant coal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Is done. This is visible through the papers that the Frauds Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma have tried their best to join hands with big business elephants to grapes and cheat the property of the Petitioner. It is further alleged that after few days of this event of fraud game, the act came into the notice of the complainant. The complainant reported the basic facts to Bakulesh T Shah and suggested to take best legal action to overcome the situation of fraud played by Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma. As assurance of legal action, Bakulesh T Shah issued the legal notice to Sanjay Verma 2/3 times and informed verbally the facts to the petitioner time to time. It is further alleged that on 12.12.2015 Bakulesh T Shah entered into an MoU with the complainant and assured that Rs. 9.5 crores is cheated by Sanjay Verma and this amount is cheated highlighting wrongly and fraudulently the rights of Mining lease over the properties of the complainant. Bakulesh T Shah assured in the terms that he will take quick legal action to get back the amount from the frauds involved in this game and pay the amount to the complainant. The complainant was assured by Bakulesh T Shah that he will provide the details of release of amount head wise to the complainant just after getting the accounting work over in the name of M/s Vibrant coal ventures Pvt. -4- Ltd. The complainant is frequently requesting for forwarding the Details of Expenditures made by M/s Vibrant coal ventures Pvt. Ltd. Towards this project. It is further alleged that a MoU was reached between the complainant and Bakulesah T Shah that he will take appropriate steps against Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma and also legally proceed against them in order to recover the defrauded amount of Rs. 9.5 crores and it will be transferred to the complainant within a reasonable period but 4 months gone by and no legal action or so called appropriate steps under Transfer of property Act to recover the amount has been taken as it has been promised by Bakulesh T Shah on dt. 12.12.2015 and dt. 22.12.2015 during his second visit to Ranchi for next MoU with the complainant. It is further alleged that that another Mou has been directly reached between a company called M/s Dwarika Singh and Sons Minerals Pvt. Ltd. And also the family members who are the legal heirs of late Dwarika Pd. Singh have entered into proper Mou giving in details the mode of conducting the business and a consideration amount worth Rs. 2.5 crores for the first time travelled from Bakulesah T Shah having his firm M/s Money Logix comtrade Pvt. Ltd. and has also reiterated the fact that Rs. 9.5 crores which was cheated by Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma by showing false claim being the legal representative of the property in question, has been projected in the MoU. Seeing the same the complainant has agreed and entered into a MoU on 22.12.2015. It is further alleged that is further stated that along with the MoU a receipt of Rs. 9.5 crores has also been raised by three cheques of the Complainant saying that this is a mere formality and the amount of Rs. 9.5 crores which was cheated by Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma from Bakulesh T Shah on the name of the complainant will be resettled. It is further alleged that further stated that on the day of execution, of final MoU of Bakulesh T Shah it was resolved between the parties that in no circumstances/situations the fraud committed by Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma will be entertained and it was also decided to throw them out for all actions and in actions of Kunal Verma so that the peaceful business will be conducted and money eaten away by Sanjay Verma and Kunal Verma will be recovered from them by adopting due process. It is further alleged that the owner/Managing Director of M/s Vibrant coal venture in his own admission has stated in MoU dated 12.12.2015 that Sai International (with whom he has merged his company i.e M/s Vibrant Coal Ventures Pvt.Ltd.) has taken away Rs. 9.5 crores and thus, this amount has -5- never been paid to the complainant and by one way or another the Sai International has been saved even if it has cheated the complainant. It is further alleged that lastly the accused persons came for settlement of all disputes and their misdeeds and on 20.05.2016 they along with some unknown persons came at Jamtara in the house of the complainant but they inspite of a take of settlement threatened the complainant and his family members if kidnaps and murder them and they refused to return back the complainant as well as papers. It is further alleged that the complainant is left with no option but to approach this learned court in the form of complaint application. It is further alleged that the complainant has already approached the local police station and on refusal to institute case filing this complaint today. 8. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 29.03.2016 was challenged in the present petition which was passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the same was not in accordance with law and in view of that interim protection was provided and thus the matter is stilling pending and further investigation has continued and chargesheet has been submitted. He further submits that for a civil litigation false case has been filed against the petitioners and the criminal colour has been provided. He further submits that the subject matter of the F.I.R. is lease hold area entered into between the father of the informant and petitioners. According to him in the complaint itself it has been disclosed that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was already transmitted as rent of the said lease hold area and the rent was being paid inspite of that present case has been filed. Mr. Roy, draws the attention of the Court to the lease deed dated 10.10.2009 which is the part of said complaint converted into F.I.R and submits that if any fault for terms and conditions was there the only civil suit is remedy whereas the complaint case has been filed which is against the mandate of law. He further submits that even deed of assignment of lease are the part of said complaint itself and inspite that the matter was sent to the police for investigation which is without applying the judicial mind and cryptic order was passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-4 in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners he submits that O.P. No.2 has preferred W.P.(C) No. 1274 of 2016 for issuance of transit challan in favour of himself without -6- disclosing the relevant facts that the said leasehold property has been given to the petitioner by the father of the O.P. No.2 in terms of order dated 20.04.2016 which was passed in pursuance of objection being invited by directing the O.P. No.2 contained in the supplementary affidavit and when it come to the knowledge of the petitioners the petitioners filed intervener petition in that writ petition and subsequently the O.P. No.2 withdrew the said writ petition. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 called the petitioner to Giridih on false pretext for settlement of dispute and on his assurance the petitioners came from Mumbai to Ranchi and thereafter threatening was given by the O.P. no.2 to the petitioner no.1 and that is why the petitioners have lodged Giridih (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 251 of 2018 against the O.P. N.2. He further submits that even for cancellation of lease deed executed in favour of the petitioners by the father of the O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.2 has instituted Original Suit No. 54 of 2021 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Giridih in which sometime mediation was conducted and mediation is pending. On these grounds he submits that the entire allegations in the F.I.R. are false and maliciously the petitioners have been made accused. On these grounds he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 9. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State by way of referring certain paragraph of the contents of complaint converted into F.I.R. submits that allegations of cheating is there against the petitioners in view of that chargesheet has been submitted and at this stage this Court may not interfere. 10. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in the complaint petition which is subject matter of F.I.R. itself it is stated that lease was there in favour of the petitioners. In para 8 of the complaint it is disclosed that three cheques of Rs. 10 lakh each for the early rent was sent to the complainant however, the complainant has refused to encash the cheque which further suggests that the petitioners were complying the terms and conditions of lease. The deed of assignment of lease are the part of F.I.R. which further suggests that dispute is arising out of civil in nature if any. The O.P. No.2 moved W.P.(C) No. 1274 of 2016 which he withdrew subsequently and for threatening to the petitioner no. 1 he has instituted the -7- F.I.R. being Giridih (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 251 of 2018. In para 8 of the plaint in Original Suit No. 54 of 2021 which is on record by way of supplementary affidavit the O.P. No.2 has stated that the petitioners were never serious about fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 10.10.2009 from the very beginning and till day he paid only Rs. 76,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as such they are defaulter. This admission in para 8 of the original suit instituted by the O.P. no.2 clearly suggests that if any dispute is there that is civil in nature wherein present case has been filed and criminal colour has been provided which is against the mandate of law. Further the learned court has sent the matter under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the said complaint was not on affidavit however, now chargesheet has been submitted. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that for registration of F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same a petition filed under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C but must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences if the allegations are vague not specific with respect to alleged offences it cannot lead to registration of F.I.R and investigation on the accusation of commission of offences alleged. 11. Admittedly in view of above background for a civil wrong present case has been filed which has taken the form of the F.I.R. pursuant to order of the learned court under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and chargesheet has been submitted. Reference may be made to the case of “Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another:” AIR 2023 SC 688 wherein para 6, 7, 8 and 9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 6. We will now, carefully scan the appli- cation filed by the respondent herein which was forwarded for investigation under Sec- tion 156 (3), Cr.P.C to consider whether the appellant is justified in taking up the conten- tion that the allegations raised thereunder did not contain the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences or whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case for investi- gation. In that regard it is worthwhile to take note of the fact that the respondent herein has alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants, We will refer to the ingredient to constitute such offences to consider the said question. 6.1 The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home the accusations under the alleged offences are hereunder:- Offence punishable under Section 323, IPC. (i) causation of hurt by another person; (ii) that he caused such hurt voluntarily; (iii) that such a case is not covered under Section 334, IPC. Offence of extortion punishable under Section 384, IPC. (i) intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another; (ii) dishonestly inducing a person so put in fear to deliver to any person any -8- property, or valuable security. Offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, IPC, (i) Entrustment of the property or any do- minion over property with accusation; (ii) The person entrusted dishonestly misappropriat- ing or converting to his own use that prop- erty; or dishonestly using or disposing that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, ex- press or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully causing sufferance to any other person so to do. Offence punishable under Section 423, IPC, The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 423, IPC is that the sale deed or deed subjecting an immovable property to a charge was contained a false statement relating to the consideration or re- lating to the persons or whose use or benefit, it was intended to operate. Thus, it is evident that Section 423, IPC deals with twin spe- cific frauds in the matter of execution of deeds or instruments of transfer or charge, idest, (i) false recital as to consideration or false recital as to the name of beneficiary. Offence punishable under Section 467, IPC. Virtually, the offence under Section 467 is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 466, IPC. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under this Section are (1) commission of forgery; (ii) that such commission of forgery must be in relation to a document purporting to be (a) a valuable property; or (b) a will; or (c) an authority to adopt a son; or (d) which purports to give authority to any person to make or trans- fer any valuable security; or (e) the receive the principle, interest or dividends thereon; or (1) to receive or deliver any money, movable property or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or (g) an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security. Offence punishable under Section 468, IPC (i) Commission of forgery, (ii) that he did so intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. Offence punishable under Section 420, IPC. To constitute the said offence there must be deception i.e., the accused must have de- ceived someone; that by such deception the accused must induce a person (i) to deliver any property; or (ii) to make, alter, destroy a whole or part of the valuable security or any- thing which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property; or (iii) that the accused must have done so dishonestly. The offence punishable under Section 120B, IPC, to constitute crimi- nal conspiracy, there must be agreement be- tween two or more persons. The agreement should be to do or cause to be done some ille- gal act, or some act which is not illegal, by illegal means, provided that where the agree- ment is other than one to commit an offence, the prosecution must further prove; or (iv) that some act besides the agreement was done by or more of the parties in pursuance of it. 7. Now, the question is whether the alle- gations in the aforesaid application are sufficient to constitute the alleged offences. 8. We have already extracted the said application filed by the respondent against the appellants in its entirety. At the outset, it is to be noted that in the affidavit accompanying the application, the respondent has stated thus:- "I have not placed this incident before any Court heretofore". In the application, obviously, it is stated that he is one of the trustees of Bagla Sundari Memorial Trust at Basunagar Madhyagram and under the said trust there is a high school by name of Rose Bank Educare and he is the Secretary of the said school. The recital in paragraph 2 of the application filed by the respondent would re- veal his case that the accused persons kept him in dark and without giving any information by strengthening the said trust deed ille- gally got the same registered on 12.07.2016 and removed him from the said post. It is in this context that the aforesaid statement in the aforesaid affidavit assumes relevance. It is the case of the appellants that in regard to his removal from the post of Secretary of the school, the respondent had instituted title suit No.363 of 2015, praying therein for a declaration that he is the Secretary of -9- the school and the said suit is still pending. De- spite the institution of the said suit and its pendency before the First Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barasat the respondent made such a statement in the affidavit. That apart, what is stated in the application is that he is the Secretary of the school, run by the trust. 9. The materials on record pertaining to the said pleadings instituted in the Civil Suit, produced in this proceeding would reveal that the respondent was in fact ousted from the membership of the trust. In the counter affi- davit filed in this proceeding, the respondent has virtually admitted the pendency of the suit filed against his removal from the post of Secretary and the trusteeship and its pen- dency. The factum of passing of adverse or- ders in the interlocutory applications in the said Civil Suit as also the prima facie finding and conclusion arrived at by the Civil Court that the respondent stands removed from the post of Secretary and also from the trustee- ship are also not disputed therein. Then, the question is why would the respondent con- ceal those relevant aspects? The indisput- able and undisputed facts (admitted in the counter-affidavit by the respondent) would reveal the existence of the civil dispute on removal of the respondent from the post of Secretary of the school as also from the trust- eeship. Obviously, it can only be taken that since the removal from the office of the Sec- retary and the trusteeship was the causative incident, he concealed the pendency of the civil suit to cover up the civil nature of the dispute.” 12. Further coming to facts of the present case what has been discussed hereinabove it is crystal clear that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences and further dispute involved is essentially of civil nature wherein criminal case has been filed and in this background the case is inviting action under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 13. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis entire criminal proceeding including order dated 29.03.2016 and chargesheet in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 326 of 2016 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 49 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, are quashed. 14.
Decision
This petition allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands dispose of. Interim order is vacated. Satyarthi-A.F.R ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -10-