1. Smt. Gita Mishra 2. Sri Radha Mohan Mishra v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Bibi Jaibun Nesa
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1385 of 2018 1. Smt. Gita Mishra 2. Sri Radha Mohan Mishra Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Bibi Jaibun Nesa -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : : ------ 09/ 21.02.2024 Heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. S.K. Laik, Advocate. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate. For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2 petitioners, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Harla P.S. Case No. 192 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1873 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. The FIR was lodged by the informant alleging therein that the informant is Lease Holder of Plot No. B/06, Sector-Market, Sector- 9, Bokaro for a period of 33 years and said Lease Deed was registered on January, 1993. It is further stated that after Lease Deed the informant constructed multistoried Building and husband of Informant started business in the name of M/S Orient Enterprises. It is further stated that one shop rented to Usha Burnwal and other one shop rented to Buccha Prasad. It is further stated that the husband of informant took loan from B.S.F.C. and the Informant has mortgaged the said plot in favour of B.S.F.C. It is further stated that due to non payment of loan, B.S.F.C. auctioned the said plot to Sri Prem Chand Burnwal. It is further stated that on filing of writ, Hon'ble High court cancelled the auction loan amount returned to B.S.F.C. It is further stated that relation between petitioner no.2 with informant and her husband was good and one Power of Attorney -2- regarding the said plot executed by the Informant in favour of Gita Mishra and possession also handed over. It is further stated that accused persons started collection of rent from the tenant and after vacation of rented premises said accused persons gave the rented premises to Manoj Kumar Mishra, Malti Kumari, Bishal Kumar and Mumtaz Alam after receiving security deposition. It is further alleged that at the time of executing power of attorney said accused persons took signature of Informant in so many blank papers and on demand adjustment the loan amount from rent the accused persons never gave any statement. After that on 28.09.2012 the Informant revoke the Power of Attorney and gave notice to the accused Gita Mishra on 17.10.2012. It is further stated that Gita Mishra after receiving the notice dated 03.12.2012 never replied. It is further stated that on April, 2013 the Informant came in knowledge regarding transfer the said plot before Bokaro Steel Plant on fake signature of Informant and in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 22/1992 for vacating the shop from tenant other persons gave evidence in place of the informant's husband and after giving lawyer notice on 27.06.2013 the Informant lodged the present case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. He submits that the informant after allotment of the plot in question has entered into a partnership deed on 06.03.1986 with her husband to start a business in the name and style of M/s Orient Enterprises and the informant and her husband Md. Murtuza have obtained a term loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC). He further submits that due to non- payment of term loan, the amount has gone up to Rs. 3.5 lakhs, due to that the informant and her husband expressed their willingness to dispose of the business to the petitioners by way of giving an intimation in writing to BSFC to this effect on 17.07.1990 and the said business is handed over to the petitioners. He further submits that the photo copy of the dissolution deed is contained in Annexure-2 to this petition. He further submits that the petitioners have paid the said amount to the -3- BSFC. He further submits that the petitioner No. 1 has filed the Eviction Suit No. 22 of 1992, on the allegations that some tenants have kept the premises in question. He submits that the said suit was allowed in favour of the petitioners and thereafter the matter was travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed. He further submits that the informant has instituted O.S. No. 43 of 2018 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-II at Bokaro for declaration that the informant is the rightful owner of the leasehold Plot No. B-6, Sector Market, Sector-9, B.S. City, Bokaro and by the judgment dated 13.12.2022, the said suit was dismissed. He submits that for the civil wrong, the criminal motion has been put. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 by way of referring the paragraphs of the counter affidavit submits that on the deed, the signature of the informant was forged one and in view of that the case is made out. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioners. 7. The documents on record, clearly suggests that the petitioners and the informant and her husband have entered into an agreement for business transaction. The loan was taken by the informant from the BSFC to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. The said loan was not paid by the informant and in view of that the said loan amount was gone up to Rs. 3.5 lakhs and thereafter a deed of dissolution was made between the petitioners and the informant and her husband, whereby they have relinquished their right. Pursuant to that the petitioners have paid the loan amount to the BSFC. The eviction suit, filed by the petitioner No. 1 was allowed in favour of the petitioners, which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For the same cause of action, the O.S. No. 43 of 2018 was instituted by the informant and by order dated 13.12.2022, the said suit was dismissed. 8. In these backgrounds, it is crystal clear that for a civil wrong, if any, the criminal colour has been provided. Reference may be made to the case of Randheer Singh Versus State of U.P., reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626. 9. In view of the above, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law. -4- 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Harla P.S. Case No. 192 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1873 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, are hereby, quashed. 11.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)