The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI K.L.S. Rao Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 ..... … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Manish Kumar Agrawalla Versus ..... … Opposite Parties Niranjan Gorai with Cr.M.P. No. 1557 of 2017 ..... Versus … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Manish Kumar Agrawal ..... … Opposite Parties Nilotpal Roy with Cr.M.P. No. 1710 of 2017 ..... Versus … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Manish Kumar Agarwalla ..... … Opposite Parties with Cr.M.P. No. 1715 of 2017 Nand Kishore Jha @ N.K. Jha @ Nand Kishore Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Manish Kumar Agrawalla -------- ..... … Petitioner ..... … 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. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate. Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate. 08/ 02.07.2024 In all these petitions, common complaint as well as the order taking cognizance are under challenge, that’s why, all these petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State in respective cases and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in all these cases. 3. In all these petitions, prayers are made for quashing of the -1- Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 & its analogous cases entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2017, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1920 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. The complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant namely Shiv Prakash Agrawalla (now deceased) is the Director of Pure Tasra Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. and has a lot of land at Tasra Mouza No. 168. He has further alleged that his brother late Om Prakash Agarwalla had filed a Title Suit No. 42/1973 against the accused No.1, M/S BCCL, in which an order has been passed against M/S BCCL by the Addl. Sub- judge-II, Dhanbad on 11/12.02.1997 for land of plot No. 302 along with other plots. It is further alleged that on 19.10.2010 at about 11 A.M the complainant was doing repairing in the bungalow by the labourers, in the meantime, some officers of IISCO along with Security Workers came there and asked to stop the work. On protest by the labourers, the accused persons who were armed with lathi, entered in the bungalow of the complainant and asked to stop the work for which there was scuffling with the accused persons who disclosed their identity and showed the Xerox copy of the Deed No. 75 dated 16.01.2006 as they have got the lands from BCCL, and on protest, the accused persons became furious and after abusing made an attack on the complainant. It has further alleged that the accused No.1 on the basis of Deed No. 75 the lands under Tasra mouza No. 168 transferred the lands to accused No. 8 imprecisely the accused No. 9 to 16 were represented on behalf of the accused No. 8. It is also alleged that accused No 4, 5, 12 & 13 made transaction of purchasing and selling the lands and accused No. 6 and 14 are the witness of the deed. It is further alleged that in para -9 of the deed No. 75, it was also claimed that accused No. 1 has got the land on the basis of Land Acquisition Act and Coal Nationalization Act and as such, the surface right is transferred to accused No. 8. Hence, the claim of the accused No. 1 is violation of Indian Registration Act. It is also alleged that in the light of decree passed in T.S No. 42/2005 of 77/79, the complainant -2- Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 & its analogous cases filed a case against some persons u/s 87 CNT Act before the court of Sri R. P. Sharma, Revenue Officer Dhanbad vide case No. 145/2005, 152/2005,153/2005 and 162/2005 which was decided in his favour and in that case, the accused No. 1 or 8 were not party. It is further alleged that complainant sent a legal notice for cancellation of Deed No 75 dated 06.01.2006 as the same was against the courts order but the accused has not made any reply. It is also alleged that the accused persons with conspiracy to each other, transferred the land after violating the order of the learned Addl. Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad passed in Title Suit Being No. 42/1973 and prepared a forged sale Deed i.e 75 dated 06.01.2006, which is illegal. As such, the accused persons have committed forgery with intent to cheat the complainant and prepared document to transfer the land as genuine. Hence, this case has been filed by the complainant. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases submits that the petitioners happened to be the officials of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and earlier the said company was known as Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited (IISCO). He submits that the BCCL has sold the land in question to the SAIL by the sale deed. He further submits that based on this complaint, the learned trial court has not taken the cognizance against the accused persons by order dated 19.07.2011 and the said complaint petition was dismissed. He also submits that the O.P. No. 2 has moved before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Rev. No. 248 of 2011 and by the order dated 10.03.2017, the said criminal revision was allowed and the order of the learned trial court was set aside and the matter was sent back to the learned trial court to examine the matter afresh and pass the fresh order on the point of cognizance. He submits that after remand, the learned trial court has taken the cognizance in absence of any further material. According to him, once the remand was made by the learned revisional court, the learned trial court has got no option and in a compelling situation, he has to take cognizance. He -3- Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 & its analogous cases submits that the SAIL is the purchaser of the land and the petitioners are the officials of the said company, in view of that the case of the petitioners are fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. Paras-20 and 21 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- a “20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. 21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making or misleading false representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.” Relying on the above judgment, he submits that so far as thereof by any person or so deceived. Nor did to be 6. these petitioners are concerned, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. -4- Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 & its analogous cases 7. Learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State in respective cases jointly submit that on the complaint case, the learned court has taken the cognizance after remand by the learned revisional court. 8. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that with regard to the title of the land in question, one Title Suit being Title Suit No. 42 of 1973 was going on and BCCL was also the party and the said suit was decreed in favour of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that in view of that the case is made out and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. 9. It is an admitted position that earlier the complaint case was filed and the learned court by order dated 19.07.2011 has dismissed the said complaint petition. The O.P. No. 2 has moved before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Rev. No. 248 of 2011 and by the order dated 10.03.2017, the said criminal revision was allowed and the order of the learned trial court was set aside and the matter was sent back to the learned trial court to examine the matter afresh and pass the fresh order, and if necessary, to take further evidence, however, further evidence was not taken up by the learned court and only on the remand, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. As such, on the past materials only and at the first instance, he has found that prima facie case is not made against the petitioners and once the learned revisional court has directed the learned court to pass a fresh order on the point of cognizance, the court was having no option and on the direction of the learned revisional court, the learned trial court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners, which suggests that the independent mind has not been applied in taking the cognizance. Further the petitioners happened to be the officials of the SAIL and the said company has purchased the land from the BCCL. In the Title Suit No. 42 of 1973, the SAIL was not the party and the said suit was between the O.P. No. 2 and the BCCL. The document, contained in Annexure-3 further suggests that the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited (IISCO) has enquired about the land in question from the Revenue Department of the Collectorate of Dhanbad about the said land and by -5- Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 & its analogous cases letter dated 21.12.2005, it was intimated that the said department has got no objection, which further suggests that before the purchasing of the land in question, the enquiry has already been made from the district administration. 10. In view of the above background, so far as these petitioners are concerned, their case is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. (Supra). As such, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2017, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1920 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed so far as these petitioners are concerned. 11. 12.
Decision
All these petitions are allowed and disposed of. It is made clear that this court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding so far other accused persons are concerned and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law. Amitesh/- [A.F.R.] (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -6- Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2017 & its analogous cases