1.Sudha Rao 2.Durga Raju 3.Rukmani Rao v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 3201 of 2017 ---- 1.Sudha Rao 2.Durga Raju 3.Rukmani Rao .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners For the State :- :-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate For the Respondent State :- Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate ---- 11/07.12.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. P.K. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.07.2017 in connection with C1 Case No.594 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur. 3. The protest cum complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant that he is partner of a partnership firm M/S Shakun Home Makers having its office at Sonari Jamshedpur .He besides the business of construction and development he is also engaged in sale and purchase of real estate in Jamshedpur Town .The husband of accused no.1 and 2 is the owner of house situated at plot no. 321 (obed) Ullan Kadma Jamshedpur The accused no.1 is wife of Late Durga Ram whereas accused no.2 is her son and accused no.4,5, and 6 are sisters of 2 Late Durga Raju In the month of May 2009 accused no.2 approached the complainant and expressed his willingness to sale the aforesaid house The complainant after being satisfied with the title of accused no. 3, 4, and 5 agreed to purchase the house of husband of accused no.1 and the total consideration for sale of house was fixed a sum of Rs. 44,87,500. The further case of the complainant is that the accused no. 3, 4, and 5 assured him that they will have no objection, if the transaction is made with the husband of accused no.1 and accused no.3 put her signature on some transaction. The husband of accused no.1 further took a sum of Rs.200000 by cash and Rs. 3 lakhs were taken by cheque for which he executed money receipt Again on 28.9.2009 the husband of accused no.2 took a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs for himself and sister in presence of accused no.1 and accused no.2 executed money receipt. In pursuance with agreement the husband of accused no.1 took a sum of Rs one Lakh from the complainant on 26.5.2009 and he executed a money receipt in favour of the complainant and complainant further paid a sum of Rs. one Lakh on the same day. The complainant has further stated that on 30.07.2009 the husband of the accused no.1 executed registered power of Attorney in favour of Abhay Kumar Nayak with respect to the said land and on the date of execution of registered power of attorney the accused had taken a sum of Rs fifteen lakhs from Khurshid Hasan and Abhay Nayak and executed a money receipt in their favour. On 11.11.2009 Abhay Nayak on the basis of power of attorney executed a registered deed of sale with respect to the aforesaid land and superstructure by Deed no. 7021 and 8986 and the consideration amount was fixed Rs.10,87,500/- only the value fixed by the government. On the date of execution registered deed of sale husband of the accused received a sum of Rs. 10,87,500/- and he also executed a money receipt. That on the date of execution of sale deed the accused no.1 handed over the possession of two pucca rooms 3 and the complainant put his lock. The complainant being a builder kept his articles inside the room and he was using the room. The complainant was also regularly requesting the husband of accused no.1 to deliver rest portion of premises which he has purchased but they were taking time for this. In the mean-time Durga Raju expired On 28.3.2013, one Tapash Pal informed the complainant that the room under the lock and key has been broken and all the articles kept in the room are missing. The complainant has further stated that thereafter he immediately contacted the accused no. 1,2,3,4 and 5 who were occupying the rest portion of the premises but they flatly refused to vacate it and also warned him not to come again otherwise he will be implicated in other case. The complainant has further stated that he recently came to know that accused no.3 has filed a title suit against the complainant on the ground that no partition has been effected and his brother has sold the property in favour of the complainant and the complainant also appeared in that case. The complainant also gave information to Kadma police station but no action was taken by police against the accused persons. The complainant on 5.1.2014 went to the house of the accused no.1 to talk with them but the accused no.2, 3,4 and 5 used vulgar language and threatened him they will implicate him in false case. When the complainant demanded the amount they flatly refused to pay the amount and they also not ready to deliver the vacant position to him. The complainant has further stated that the accused no.1, 4, 5 and 6 had knowledge that they are selling their house and they have also received the entire consideration amount as mentioned above and distributed the amount themselves with an intention to grab the amount thereafter the accused no.3 has been set up by the accused no.4 and 5 to file civil case. The complainant has further stated that he had filed a complaint case against the petitioner which was referred to Kadma police station for 4 institution of F.I.R. thereafter the case was registered under sections 420, 406, 447,422,415,467,471,506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant and the witnesses also submitted documents in support of the case but surprisingly enough the police has submitted final form in favour of accused persons and when he received noticed on 26.2.2015 then he filed the case. 4. Mr. Chandan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.5 have already left for their heavenly abode and in view of that, their names have already been deleted by the earlier order dated 13.06.2022. 5. He submits that now this petition is confined to petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4. He submits that the said allegation was subject matter in Kadma P.S.Case No.106 of 2014, G.R. No.1573 of 2014 which was registered pursuant to the complaint case No.401 of 2014 on the direction of the learned trial court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He submits that police has investigated the matter and submitted final form stating that the allegations are civil in nature and the said final form is contained in Annexure-3. He further submits that the allegations are made that husband of the petitioner no.1 transferred the land in favour of the complainant (O.P.No.2) through power of attorney holder and possession was also provided to the complainant and the allegations are made that part possession was provided. He submits that the learned court has taken cognizance on protest petition and there is nothing disclosed in the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2017 how these petitioners are involved who happened to be wife of the deceased namely K. Prasad Rao and the petitioner nos.3 and 4, who happened to be sisters of the said K. Prasad Rao. He further submits that a title suit with regard to property in question has already been instituted by the complainant. He further submits that in the complaint petition itself in 5 paragraph no.2 it has been admitted about pendency of the title suit pending in the court of Sub Judge at Jamshedpur and he relied in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736. 6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and there are allegations of cheating against these petitioner and others and he submits that this case is not coming with the parameters of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. On these grounds, he submits that this case may kindly be dismissed. 7. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the allegation is there and pursuant to the protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance. 8. The Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted position that the dispute is arising out of transaction and even these petitioners are not the executant of that deed and late husband of the petitioner has executed power of attorney in favour of another person who sold the property in question to the O.P.No.2. The petitioner no.1 is wife and the petitioners nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased namely K. Prasad Rao. Thus, if the argument of the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 is accepted, no case so far these petitioners are concerned is made out. The police has already investigated the matter and submitted final form saying the case is civil in nature and on the protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance and in paragraph no.20 of the protest petition the pendency of title suit between the parties is admitted. Thus, maliciously this petition has been filed against these petitioners who have not executed the said deed in favour of the complaint and maliciously the present case has been instituted against these petitioners and to put criminal law into motion only by way of adducing two or more enquiry witnesses is deprecated by the Hon’ble 6 Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749. This is a case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C as no criminality is made out. In view of that, the argument of the learned court for the O.P.No.2 is not accepted by the Court. 9. Accoringly, entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.07.2017 in connection with C1 Case No.594 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur are quashed. 10. 11. SI/,
Decision
Cr.M.P. No.3201 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)