1. Suresh Prasad Gupta @ Loha Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Late v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Krishna Pandey @ Nunu Pandey, son of Late
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1222 of 2022 1. Suresh Prasad Gupta @ Loha Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Late Hari Prasad Sahu, Resident of Pachamba, P.O. and P.S. –Pachamba, District -Giridih. 2. Chandan Kumar Gupta, aged about 41 years, son of Suresh Prasad Gupta @ Loha Singh, Resident of High School Road, Pachamba, P.O. and P.S. –Pachamba, District –Giridih. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Krishna Pandey @ Nunu Pandey, son of Late Parma Nand Pandey, Resident of Pachamba, High School Road, P.O. and P.S. –Pachamba, District -Giridih. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 By the Court:- : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Amrit Anunay, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Saraswat, Advocate ….. 1. 2. 3. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 54 of 2022. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 entered into an agreement for sale with the informant. Paid him the advance amount but did not pay the remaining amount and 1 Cr.M.P. No.1222 of 2022 the petitioners are pressurizing the informant to execute the sale deed without paying the remaining amount. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant Pachamba P.S. Case No. 54 of 2022 has been registered and police is investigating the case since then. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioners have paid Rs.5,00,000/- and subsequently by way of cheque paid Rs.7,10,000/- but the informant suppressing the material facts has instituted this case for wreaking vengeance and harassing the petitioners. It is next submitted that as per para-8 of the agreement, the petitioner no.1 has been given the right to construct the boundary wall, gate, boring for water etc. and in terms of the said agreement, the petitioner no.1 constructed boundary wall and a room and installed a gate in which Rs.15 Lakhs have been spent by the petitioner no.1. It is then submitted that the informant himself is demanding extortion amount from the petitioner no.1 and has also instituted this false case. It is next submitted that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence punishable in law is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 54 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 2 Cr.M.P. No.1222 of 2022 5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submit that the averments made in the F.I.R. constitute the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the two essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are :- (A) Deceit that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and; (B) Inducing the person so deceived to part with property, As has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioners of any deceit or dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation. The allegations made in the F.I.R. even if considered to be true, makes out a case of breach of contract which is in the absence of essential ingredient of deceit is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under 3 Cr.M.P. No.1222 of 2022 Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the offence are as follows:- (i) Mens rea (ii) There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract. (iii) The accused dishonestly used or disposed of the property. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any property by the petitioner. In the absence of that, this Court is of the considered view that even if the averments made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners. 10. In view of the discussions made above, even if the contents of the entire F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire 4 Cr.M.P. No.1222 of 2022 criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 54 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 54 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 12.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 26th June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1222 of 2022