Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 1472 of 2018 Sanjeev Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner ---- -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 :- :- :-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sidharth Roy, Advocate Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate Mr. Pratiyush Lala, Advocate ---- 9/01.07.2024 Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent State and the O.P.No.2 respectively. 2. In this petition, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No.1819 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that on being induced by the petitioner, the O.P.No.2 has agreed to purchase a plot of land on a false belief that the petitioner has the right, title and ownership over the same. Accordingly, an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on 21.09.2011 and a sum of Rs.4,01,000/- was paid by the complainant to the petitioner in toto but despite of payment of money no sale deed was executed and only false assurance was made on behalf of the petitioner for transferring the land but the same was not done even after requests and reminders by the 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1472 of 2018 complainant. It is alleged that on enquiry it was gathered by the complainant that the petitioner had no title over the land nor had the right of transfer. It is further alleged when on 2.7.2016 the complainant demanded back his money and threatened the petitioner to move court of law, the petitioner on repercussion came to the house of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences and fled away. 4. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter is arising out of an agreement to purchase a plot in question. He submits that the chunk of land in question was purchased by Annexure-4 in the year 2011. He submits that entire amount has not been paid and in view of that, this is a case of breach of contract wherein the complaint case has been filed and criminal colour has been provided in the matter. He submits that in view of that, no case is made out. He draws the attention of the Court to the memo of consideration contained along with the said agreement and submits that only Rs.4,01,000/- was paid out of Rs.5,51,000/- which was total consideration. He submits that this is only a breach of contract and in view of that, the colour of criminality in the matter has been given which is an abuse of process of law. He relied in order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1687 of 2016 vide order dated 11.04.2017 and by way of relying on this judgment, he submits that was identical facts in that case and the learned court in that case has been pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding. He further submits that there are line of judgments by the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in question and in view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1472 of 2018 State submits that the matter is arising out of complaint case and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. 6. The learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer on the ground that in the petition itself the petitioner has stated that the land was coming within the purview of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act) from the year 2012 and in view of that, he has not been able to transfer the same. He submits that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid through RTGS and Rs.51,000/- was paid by cash and as such, a substantial amount to the tune of Rs.4,01,000/- has been paid and that has also been stated in the solemn affirmation. He submits that in spite of taking an amount to the tune of Rs.4,01,000/- the land was not transferred which clearly suggest that the intention of cheating from the very beginning is there and he submits that neither the amount in question was returned back nor the registration has been made and as such the case is made out and, on this ground, at this stage, the Court may not quash the entire criminal proceeding. 7. Admittedly, there is an agreement between the parties and the matter is arising out of an agreement between the parties for transfer of land and total consideration amount was fixed at Rs.5,51,000/- and it is an admitted position to the O.P.No.2 has paid a sum of Rs.4,01,000/- through RTGS as well as by cash as aforesaid and substantial amount was paid to the petitioner and in spite of that the neither the land in question was transferred nor the amount in question was returned and as such, this fact clearly suggest that intention of cheating from the very beginning is there. There is no doubt that when the nature of civil case is converted into the criminal nature of case, the Courts are rising to the occasion to quash the entire criminal proceeding 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1472 of 2018 and at the same time, the criminality as well as civil ingredients both are made out; both the proceedings can go simultaneously as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made out the guidelines for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in the case of Priti Saraf and Another Versus State of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 206. In the said guidelines, it has clearly been stated that the High Court is not required to roam into the matter to consider whether the case is made out of not? and, if the prima-facie case is made out, Section 482 Cr.P.C is not the remedy as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. 8. So far as the cases relied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1687 of 2016(supra) is concerned, the facts of that case were otherwise and in that case, the informant and the petitioner were partners in a partnership firm and in view of that the dispute has arisen and that is not the fact in the present case. No case of interference is made out. 9. 10. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.1472 of 2018 is dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated. 11.
Decision
Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1472 of 2018