Dilip Kumar Tiwari v. with
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1456 of 2015 Deo Rani Singh ..... … Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Dilip Kumar Tiwari Versus with ..... … Opposite Parties Cr.M.P. No. 1467 of 2015 1. Avishek Kumar Singh 2. Deo Rani Devi Singh 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Dilip Kumar Tiwari Versus -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2 ------ : : : : : : ------ Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Ms Twinkle Rani, Advocate. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. Mr. Rohit, Advocate. 06/ 21.11.2023 I.A. No. 5519 of 2015 in Cr.M.P. No. 1467 of 2015 has been filed for deleting the name of petitioner No. 2 Deo Rani Devi Singh. 2. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 1467 of 2015 submits that so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, this petition is being pressed and the petitioner No. 2 has inadvertently been made party in this case, however, she is already a petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1456 of 2015. 3. In view of the above submission, it appears that bona fide mistake has taken place. As such, the prayer made in the said I.A. is
Decision
allowed and the same is disposed of. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 1467 of 2015 shall delete the name of the petitioner no. 2 in course of the day. 5. In both these petitions, a common question of fact and law are involved that’s why both these petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 6. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Spl.P.Ps. appearing for the State and Mr. Rohit, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in respective cases. -2- 7. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 199 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 2715 of 2015 [arising out of complaint case no. 2650 of 2014], pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 8. The complaint case was filed alleging therein:- (a) The informant/complainant is Geo-Scientist and he was in search of piece of land for his self use. (b) Accused no. 3 i.e. Abhay Pandey approached informant/complainant and introduced himself as agent of Accused No.1 i.e. petitioner and Accused No. 2 i.e. Deo Rani Devi Singh. (c) The said Accused no. 3 informed the complainant that the accused No. 1 and 2 authorized him to search customer of their land and hosue situated at Village Lalganj under Khata No. 88, Kewat No. 6, R.S. Plot No. 285, Thana Sadar, Thana No. 171 area measuring 4.59 decimal including Double Storied Residential building measuring an area of about 1850 Sq. ft. (d) The complainant believing upon the words became ready to purchase the said land on consideration of Rs. 32 lacs and entered into agreement for sale dated 31.01.2014 with Deo Rani Devi Singh. (e) The complainant in pursuance of the said agreement to sale remitted a sum of Rs. 7,65,056/- in the account of petitioner as advance. It has been further alleged that on the date of agreement the Accused No. 2 duly received Rs. 51,000/- "Sagun" and accused No. 3 took Rs. 60,000/- as broker charge without any money receipt. (f) Believing upon the commitment of the accused persons the complainant had applied for Housing Loan from the Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (D.H.F.L.). The complainant had also purchased e-stamp paper of Rs. 1,29,000/- (g) However, the accused person the accused No. 1 & 2 started lingering the matter and made plea that they will do registry after they will return from Delhi after attending the Marriage Ceremony of their relative. -3- (h) Accused No. 1 & 2 after returning from Delhi demanded Rs. 37 lacs from the complainant for registry of said land because the limitation of Agreement has failed. (i) The complainant started demanding his advance of Rs 8,76,057/- from the accused persons. The Accused No-1 himself and with the help of his gunda elements started giving life threatening to the complainant that if in future he will again demand his advance amount he will kill him. (j) Thereafter on 18.03.2014 the complainant sent legal notice to the accused persons and after receiving the Legal Notice the accused persons started threatening the complainant by different mobile numbers. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the case allegation is made that a sum of Rs. 8,76,057/- was taken by the petitioners from the O.P. No. 2 for purchase of land. He submits that however, the said amount has already been returned back to the O.P. No. 2 and to that effect the O.P. No. 2 has filed a petition before the learned court for withdrawing of the case, which is contained in Annexure-4 (page-73) of Cr.M.P. No. 1456 of 2015. 10. Mr. Rohit, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in both the cases submits that Annexure-4 is there, however, he has got no recent instruction to that effect from the O.P. No. 2. 11. Learned Spl.P.Ps. appearing for the State submit that only the FIR is registered and that is under challenge. 12. From Annexure-4 in Cr.M.P. No. 1456 of 2015, it appears that the O.P. No. 2 has filed a petition before the learned court for withdrawing the case and the said petition suggests that grievance of the O.P. No. 2 has been fulfilled and the case is civil in nature as for recovery of the amount the case has been lodged and it has been stated that the said amount has already been returned. As such, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 199 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 2715 of 2015 [arising out of complaint case -4- No. 2650 of 2014], pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed. 14. Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)