Surayadeo Singh @ Surajdeo Singh @ Dhakkan Singh, son of Manglu Singh, resident of v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ram Manohar Nath Sahdeo
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 2434 of 2013 ---- Surayadeo Singh @ Surajdeo Singh @ Dhakkan Singh, son of Manglu Singh, resident of Village Damkara, P.O. and P.S. Palkot, District Gumla .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ram Manohar Nath Sahdeo .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2414 of 2013 ---- Shashi Bhushan Singh, son of Sri Maksudan Singh, resident of Hawai Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Jagarnathpur, District -Ranchi...Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ram Manohar Nath Sahdeo ....Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State For the O.P.No.2 :- :- Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate [in both cases] Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate [in both cases] ---- 6/17.05.2023 Both the cases arising out of same F.I.R and common question of facts and law are involved and both the petitions have been
Legal Reasoning
has been quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7595 of 2012 which is now subject matter before the Division Bench in the L.P.A. In this background, it is crystal clear that the dispute is with regard to Hukumnama of 1940 and the possession has been claimed by the O.P.No.2. Further the rent receipt is also issued in the name of Chintamani Trust. Thus, there is disputed question of fact with regard to possession of Surajdeo Singh and the O.P.No.2 and that cannot be the subject matter of High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Further charge sheet has been submitted and what are the materials in the charge sheet is not disclosed in the entire petition. Thus, the case of quashing so far as Surajdeo Singh is concerned is not made. In the above facts, the Court finds that the petitioner Shashi Bhushan Singh was Karamchari of the Circle Officer and he has issued the rent receipt on the direction of the High Court and further on the direction of the higher authorities, thus, he has only complied the direction of higher authorities. He was posted there since 2007 to 2009. The dispute with Surajdeo Singh and affidavit of Mahadev Mishra speaks of fraudulent transaction of the year 1940. Thus, so far as the petitioner Shashi Bhushan Singh is concerned, it appears that he has been maliciously implicated in the case for complying the direction of the higher authorities and the direction of the High Court. Further the judgment relied by Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 are not in dispute. It is well settled that for the case of criminality as well as civil dispute, both the cases will go simultaneously and that has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court and in this regard a reference may be made to the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269. The Court finds that criminality is made out so far as petitioner Surajdeo Singh is concerned that can be decided in a full-fledged trial. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ratu P.S. Case 13 No.174 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3792 of 2013, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi or his successor learned court so far petitioner-Shashi Bhushan Singh is concerned is quashed and accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.2414 of 2013 succeeds. 11. The Court finds that there are allegations against the petitioner-Surajdeo Singh and so far as the case of petitioner-Surajdeo Singh is concerned, the order taking cognizance is kept intact, and the Court has not interfered with it, however, the trial shall proceed in accordance with law and the case shall be decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order of this Court, and that is why, Cr.M.P.No.2434 of 2013 is dismissed. 12. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,
Arguments
Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 3. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.174 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3792 of 2013, pending before the 2 learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi or his successor learned court. 4. The order taking cognizance was challenged by I.A. No.7010 of 2021 and the said I.A. was allowed on 17.12.2021 and that is how the order taking cognizance dated 20.11.2013 is also under challenge. 5. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is the legal and successor of Palkot estate and he is the trustee of the said trust. Shri Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo created a trust namely “Chintamani Trust” for performing puja and religious ceremony and accordingly a deed was executed on 20.08.1948 before the Registrar, Ranchi. The land measuring an area of 27.20 acres out of plot no.496, Khata No.383, Khewat No.2, Thana no.228, situated at village Pundag, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi was recorded in the name of Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo in the revisional survey record of right and accordingly the said Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo transferred 10 acres of land of the said plot in favour of raiyat Kedar Nath Chaturvedi and 8 acres in favour of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo as per by laws of the trust the revenue of the said land was to be collected from the recognized raiyati, Kedar Nath Chaturvedi and others and was to be invested in puja and religious purpose of the said trust. The said trust is recognized by the government and the revenue collected from the raiyat in respect of the said land of the trust is invested in Puja and religious purpose and even after vesting of Jamindari the government is collecting the revenue from the raiyat and the said revenue is being transferred by the government to the trust of the said religious purpose. 3 After vesting of Zamindari the recorded zamindar filled up and submitted return jamabandi to the competent authority Additional Collector, Ranchi regarding the fact about the transfer of the revenue of the said land to the trust for religious purpose. The complainant being the legal heir and successor of Palkot estate became the one of the trustee of the said trust as per rules and regulations of the trust therefore he is looking after and managing and performing the object of the trust for Puja and religious ceremony which is the aim and object of the said trust as such the complainant is entitled to file the present complaint on behalf of the said trust. The accused no.1 Suryadev Singh @ Dhakkan Singh in consonance with the accused no.2 Shashi Bhushan Singh who was the Karamchari of Ratu Anchal after making criminal conspiracy with each other got the Jamabandi in respect of the said land measuring 7 acres of out of plot no.496 Khata Noa.383 Khewat no.2 situated at Village Pundag P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi opened in the name of Manglu Singh (now deceased) on the basis of forge and fabricated Hukumnama executed on 8.1.1940 and forged rent receipts of Palkot estate. The accused persons after making criminal conspiracy with each other got a sada hukumnana prepared in the year 2002 on back date of year 1940 through one Mahadev Mishra, in respect of the said land by giving threat to the said Mahadev Mishra and is claiming the said land on the basis of the said forge and fabricated hukumnana and thereafter got the demand prepared at Ratu Anchal in the name of Manglu Singh who was the father of the accused no.1 Suryadev Singh, and in the said Hukumnana there is neither genuine signature of the landlord Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo nor the said Hukumnama bears the genuine seal of Palkot estate nor the said Hukumnama was prepared in the year 1940 rather it was prepared in the year 2002 and the 4 signature of the zamindar is forged one and also the seal of the Palkot Estate is forge one not only this but the rent receipt of the said land which bears the signature of Karpardaz of Palkot Estate namely Lalita Prasad is also forged one and not prepared or signed by Sri Lalita Prasad as such the entire paper in respect of the said land that is Hukumnama and rent receipts are manufactured and forged by the accused and the demand was opened and rent receipts were issued by Ratu Anchal on the basis of the said forged and fabricated papers. The ex-landlord Shri Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo never made settlement of the said land in favour of the accused, Suryadev Singh nor to his father Manglu Singh rather the entire things was made by the accused by preparing and producing forged and fabricated papers. It is relevant to mention here that since the said forged and fabricated paper that is Hukumnama was written in the script and by the hand of Shri Mahadev Mishra as such the said Mahadev Mishra being the honest and old person of 85 years was due to the said old age and call of soul he was not intended to die by doing illegal act and therefore by hearing the sound of soul he swore affidavit before the Notary Public Gumla on 6.7.2009 stating the real fact regarding illegal act of the accused no.1 Suryadev Singh in respect of truth of the said fabricated Hukumnama and rent receipts issued by Palkot estate. Whenever the complainant’s father Baralal Govind Nath Shahdeo being the Chairman of the said Chintamani trust, Palkot came to learn about the said fact that the accused person got the demand opened before the Ratu Anchal in respect of the said land that is the property of the trust in the name of Manglu Singh who was the father of the accused no.1 then the said Chairman Baralal Goving Nath Shahdeo filed a misc. Case No.50R-15/2009-10 before the competent court, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of demand in 5 respect of the said land, which was previously opened in the name of Manglu Singh and after his death was transferred in the name of Suryadev Singh, accused no.1. During the course of the hearing the said Misc. petition the learned Deputy Commissioner Ranchi was pleased to call for report from the Deputy Commissioner Gumla regarding the verification of fact mentioned in the affidavit sworn by Mahadev Mishra that is the writer of the said forged and fabricated Hukumnama and accordingly verification regarding truth of affidavit at Mahadeo Mishra was made by deputing the competent person that is Halka Karamchari of Gumla through Circle Officer, Palkot and accordingly on verification it was found that the affidavit sworn by Mahadev Mishra was true and correct stating intre-alia that the said Hukumnama and rent receipt on the basis of which demand was opened before the Circle Officer Ratu Anchal Ranchi in the name of Manglu Singh and later on transferred in the name of accused no.1 was forged and fabricated and was never genuine nor enforceable. After carefully scrutiny of the entire material available on the records of Misc Case No.50-R-15/2009-10 and after hearing the parties the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi found that the demand was prepared on the basis of forged fabricated and manufactured documents i.e. Hukumnama and rent receipt in connivance with the accused and as such vide order dated 22.10.2012 the learned Deputy Commissioner Ranchi was pleased to conceal the jamabandi standing in the name of accused no.1 Suryadev Singh. The other aspect of wrong doing and hatching criminal conspiracy by the accused nos.1 and 2 and having hand of both of accused in the present offensive act is clear that whenever the said forged and fabricated Hukumnama was produced before the accused no.2 for opening demand in the name of father of the accused no.1 then 6 the accused no.2 marking as a capacity of Halka karamchari, Ratu did not follow the norms and procedure of opening jamabandi and for suppressing the fact, he did not issue notice to the real landlord so that the forgery may be suppressed and only after making Khanpurti by service of notice by illegal process by obtaining signature of other persons got the jamabandi opened in the name of father of accused no.1 Manglu Singh now deceased and now transferred in the name of accused no.1 Suryadeo Singh. The complainant went to Ratu P.S. for lodging the case then he was directed to get shelter in the court of law. The said complaint was sent by the learned court under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of the FIR and investigation and accordingly the case was registered as Ratu P.S. Case No.174 of 2013, G.R. No.3792 of 2013. 6. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that father of the co-accused has acquired the land measuring an area of 7 acres, plot no.496, Khata No.383, Khewat No.2, Thana no.228, situated at village Pundag, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi by way of Hukumnama by the ex-landlord namely Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo dated 8th January, 1940 and a raiyati settlement was made for an area of 7 acres on the acceptance of salami and thereafter the rent was fixed accordingly. He submits that the ex-land lord also granted rent receipt to the father of the co-accused namely Manglu Singh. He submits that after vesting of the intermediary interest into the State of Bihar the right of the settlee was duly accepted by the State and accordingly vide compensation Case No.5/52-53 in the name of the father of the co- accused was recognized as raiyati of the settled land on the basis of Hukumnama dated 8.1.1940. He submits that all of sudden State of Jharkhand stopped taking rent from the said Manglu Singh and his heir 7 and the co-accused in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007 approached this Court and the said case was allowed and direction was issued to issue rent receipt. Pursuant thereto, the rent receipt was again issued in favour of the petitioner namely Surajdeo Singh. Manglu Singh died leaving behind the co-accused as the legal heir and as such Surajdeo Singh was in peaceful possession of other land and accordingly paying rent to the State of Jharkhand in the name of original raiyat namely Manglu Singh. He submits that miscellaneous case was filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the O.P.No.2 and the Deputy Commissioner has been pleased to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioner Surajdeo Singh. He further submits that the said cancellation order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7595 of 2012 and the said W.P.(C) case was allowed by the order dated 18.4.2022 and the cancellation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was quashed. He submits that against the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7595 of 2012 the O.P.No.2 has preferred L.P.A No.231 of 2022 which is pending. In this background, he submits that so far as Surajdeo Singh is concerned, he is bonafidely in possession over the land in question and on that account no case of cheating is made out and the case is abuse of the process of law. He further submits that Shashi Bhushan Singh who is the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2414 of 2013, he was only the Halka Karamchari and he was posted at Ratu since 2007 to 2009 only wherein the allegation are of earlier period of cheating and whatever has been done by this petitioner was on the direction of the High Court and he was only issued the rent receipt on which this petitioner has been implicated in this case and on these grounds he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that the petitioner procured 8 the Hukumnama by fraudulent means forging the signature and stamp of the estate of ex-land lord which creates doubt on the authenticity of said Hukumnama as observed by the Deputy Commissioner and the said fact was evident from the perusal of the affidavit by one Mahadev Mishra son of late Sonami Mishra resident of Palkot, PO and PS –Palkot, District Gumla. He submits that there is allegation against Surajdeo Singh that he has threatened said Mahadeo Mishra with dire consequences and prepared Hukumnama which is forged and executed in 1930 and the same does not bear the signature of Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo. He submits that jamabandi receipt is also forged and does not bear signature of Lala Prasad who was then Karpardar of ex-land lord Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo. He submits that Surajdeo Singh by suppressing the real facts on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in collusion and connivance with Shashi Bhushan Singh, Karamchari, Ratu Anchal succeeded in getting the demand opened in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the order of the High Court. He submits that the Surajdeo Singh and his father never came in possession of any portion of disputed land and the O.P.No.2 is in possession of the land in question and the land having acquired the same by legal and valid by virtue of registered sale deed of trust dated 20.8.1948. He submits that the return was filed in Trust Case No.6/1956-57 in which name of Lal Maneshwar Nath Shahdeo and K.N. Chaturvedi were shown with respect to lands of plot no.496 of khata no.383. He further submits that the annuity was paid to the said trust by order passed in Case No.6R8/ 1955-56 and in the register II and the issue of receipt in the name of Chintamani trust has also been disclosed and the rent is realized. He further submits that in Misc.Case No.1/85-86 on enquiry it was found that the rent shown in the return filed by the Chintamani trust were settled to various persons including Lal Maneshwar Nath Shahdeo and K.M.Chaturvedi. On this 9 ground, he submits that there are disputed question of facts and this Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C may not interfere with the matter considering the parameters of interfering with the section 482 Cr.PC and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of “State of NCT of Delhi and Another v Priti Saraf and Another” reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 206. Paragraph nos.13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment are quoted below: “13. Learned counsel submits that the High Court has committed a manifest error in ignoring the material facts on record which make the orders sensitively susceptible and further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the entire gamut of facts and appositely opined that the order taking cognizance could not be flawed but the High Court has completely erred in its conclusion and has not even looked into the bare facts available on record and has proceeded on a premise that in case where there is an agreement to sell and its subsequent termination for its alleged breach, such disputes are civil disputes and more so where the arbitral proceedings are pending, criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court, in the given circumstances, what has been made to be a basis by the learned Judge is unsustainable in law and hence the order deserves to be set aside. 23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record. 24. The question which is raised for consideration is that in what circumstances and categories of cases, a criminal proceeding may be quashed either in exercise of the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or in the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This has often been hotly debated before this Court and various High Courts. Though in 10 a series of decisions, this question has been answered on several occasions by this Court, yet the same still comes up for consideration and is seriously debated. 26. This Court has clarified the broad contours and parameters in laying down the guidelines which have to be kept in mind by the High Courts while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court are illustrative and not exhaustive. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and the situation which is to be kept in mind when the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 27. It has been further elucidated recently by this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at great length. 28. It is thus settled that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception. 29. In the matter under consideration, if we try to analyse the guidelines of which a reference has been made, can it be said that the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet do not make out a case against the 2nd respondent or do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the 2nd respondent or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the 2nd respondent.” 8. Relying on aforesaid judgment he submits this is not a case of interference by High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C and both these petitions may kindly be dismissed. He further submits that if criminality is made out, civil as well as criminal, both the case can go simultaneously and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Sri Krishna Agency v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 69. On this ground, he submits that both the petitions are fit to be 11 dismissed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State jointly submits that criminality is made out and jamabandi does not decide the right, title and interest of any person and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance looking into the charge sheet and thus, the case is fit to be dismissed. 10. In view of above submission of the learned counsels for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the FIR. The Court finds that the petitioner Surajdeo Singh has asserted that father of the petitioner namely Manglu Singh came in possession of the land in pursuance of sada Hukumnama in the year 1940 and after death of the father, Suajdeo Singh has come in possession of the land in question. It is admitted fact that jamabandi was officially opened in the name of the petitioner which was subsequently cancelled by the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the rent receipt was stopped by the office of the Circle Officer and for that the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007 and direction was issued by the Court to issue the rent receipt in view of the fact that once jamabandi is opened without any cogent reason and without cancelling the same the rent cannot be stopped and thereafter Shashi Bhushan Singh who is the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2414 of 2013 has issued the rent receipt and subsequently the O.P.no.2 filed miscellaneous case before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the jamabandi of the petitioner by an elaborate order in which he has taken note of submission of the petitioner as well as the O.P.No.2 and particularly looking into the affidavit of Mahadev Mishra who happened to be Karpardar of the then Maharaj wherein he has stated that Surajdeo Singh has forcefully obtained the jamabandi of the then Maharaj. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner there is no doubt 12