Meenu Singh … v. 2. Raj Prakash
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1774 of 2016 Meenu Singh …… Petitioner 1.The State of Jharkhand Versus 2. Raj Prakash …… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ---------
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate 6/Dated: 18/04/2024 I.A. No. 6241 of 2020 has been filed for making amendment in prayer portion of the main application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this petition cognizance has been taken vide order dated 07.01.2017 that is why it was necessitated to file this interlocutory application. He submits that earlier this matter was taken up however, the hearing was not made on the said I.A. 3. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposes the prayer and submits that belatedly the said I.A. has been filed. 4. This petition was filed in the year, 2016 itself and the petitioner was provided interim protection by order dated 17.03.2017 and the learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 07.01.2017 and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, prayer made in I.A. is allowed. 5. 6.
Decision
I.A. No. 6241 of 2020 stands disposed of. Let this I.A. be treated as part of the present petition. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 7. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016, corresponding 1 to G.R. Case No. 1727 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 8. In view of allowing the aforesaid I.A. today, the cognizance order dated 07.01.2017 is also under challenge. 9. The F.I.R. has been filed alleging therein that the petitioner alongwith one Sabhajit Singh possessed a house at Saraidhela Chanakya Nagar of Street No.-4, Saraidhela, Dhanbad under Mouza No.-12, Mouza Kola Kusuma, under Khata No.-76, Plot No.-324 and 325 having an Area of expressed 8.25 Decimals and they jointly their desire to sale out the constructed house on a consideration amount and Rs. 45,00,000/- and accordingly an agreement for sale was entered into in between the Informant the Petitioner on 21.01.2016 and advance amount Rs. 7,00,000/- was deposited in the Account of the Petitioner being account No.-60173112358 of the Bank of Maharashtra, Saraidhela Branch through a cheque. It is further alleged that on the date of agreement they handed over the Original Documents of the said house and thereafter the Informant further deposited Rs. 13,00,000/- through RTGS in the account of the Petitioner and Rs. 12,49,000/- was also deposited in the account of the Sabhajit Singh in his account No.- 10279009411 of the State Bank of India, Ρ.Β. Branch, Dhanbad and thereafter the Informant also deposited Rs. 5,05,000/- in the account of the Petitioner through his wife and also deposited Rs. 7,75,000/- in the Account of Sabhajit Singh and thus total amount of Rs. 38,74,000/- has been deposited in the account of Meenu Singh (Petitioner) and Sabhajit Singh. It is further alleged that rest amount of Rs. 6,26,000/- was decided to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed on 08.04.2016 and accordingly on that day the Informant and his wife reached to Registry Officer, Dhanbad and prepared the sale deed through Vendor and tried to contact the 2 Petitioner on her Mobile Phone on several time and also tried to contact Sabhajit Singh on his Mobile, but they did not come and later on mobile phone become switched off, then the Informant and his wife met with the Petitioner and requested to executed the sale deed, then the Petitioner threatened to the Informant and his wife and stated that money will not be returned and stated that she will indulge the Informant in false cases. Thus the Petitioner has committed criminal conspiracy and deceived the Informant. 10. Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to execute her part of contract. He submits that the land in question which is subject matter of the present F.I.R. was purchased by the husband of the petitioner in her name along with co-accused Sabhajit Singh in the year, 2002 having half share each i.e. 2 and half kathas each only. He submits that the agreement was entered into between the petitioner and Sabhajit Singh and O.P. No.2 for the sale of said land. He further submits that in the meantime Sabhajit Singh left for his heavenly abode that is why the sale deed was not executed. Mr. Lala submits that thereafter the present F.I.R. has been lodged. According to him the F.I.R. was registered in the year 2016 itself however the petitioner came to know about the present F.I.R. subsequently thereto. He submits that this matter was taken up before this court on 23.11.2020 and on that day the petitioner was directed to take instruction as to whether she is ready to sell and execute the deed in respect of her property in question or not. He submits that again the matter was taken up on 22.02.2022 and on that day it was informed to the Court that the petitioner is ready to comply her part of contract and she is ready to return amount which she has received. On that day, O.P. No.2 had taken time. According to him on that day O.P. No.2 has not informed about the filing of the Original Suit No. 90 of 2017 for execution of sale deed. However the said suit was decreed in favour of O.P. 3 No.2 by judgment dated 05.12. 2019 itself whereas on 22.02.2022 this fact was not disclosed before this Court. He submits that in view of filing of the suit itself it is crystal clear that for a civil wrong if any present case has been lodged. On that ground he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 11. Learned counsel for the State submits that chargesheet has been submitted thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance. 12. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that decree was passed in Original Suit No. 90 of 2017 by order dated 05.12.2019 thereafter execution case has been filed in which the petitioner has not appeared. He submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected and process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been executed however, interim protection was granted on the first date of appearance of the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that this petition is fit to be dismissed. 13. It is an admitted position that for execution of sale deed F.I.R. has been registered. Bonafidely the petitioner has stated before this Court that the she is ready to comply her part of contract and she is ready to return the said amount to the O.P. No.2. This fact has been recorded in the order dated 22.02.2022. On that O.P. No.2 has taken time for taking instruction however filing of Original Suit No. 90 of 2017 filed by the O.P. No.2 was not disclosed before this Court on 22.02.2022 however the said suit was decreed in favour of O.P. No.2 by judgment dated 05.12.2019 and it was informed to the Court that execution case has been filed by the O.P. No.2 for execution of decree in favour of O.P. No.2. Thus, it is crystal clear that for a civil wrong if any criminal case has been filed. 14. It is well settled that every breach of contract can not be subject matter of criminal case. In view of above to allow the criminal proceeding to continue will amount the abuse of process of law. 4 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 07.01.2017 arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1727 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed. 16. This petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated. Satyarthi/ ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 5