1. Gopal Chandra Gorain 2. Asim Gorain v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2017 ---- 1. Gopal Chandra Gorain 2. Asim Gorain .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
--- Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate :- :- Mr. Lily Sahay, APP :- Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate 05/24.06.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, ---- learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.11.2016 arising out of Nirsa P.S. Case No.250 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3118 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. The FIR was registered alleging therein that an agreement for sale dated 28.06.2015 was executed by and between the informant and petitioner No.1 for purchasing a land of mouza Balkupa, Mouza No.142, Plot No.1262, Khata No.34, Area 307 decimal out of the same 115 decimal @ 30,000 per decimal and total value Rs.34,50,000/- and the petitioner No.2 son of the informant was made witness in the said agreement. It is alleged that as per agreement the registry of land was to be made in three phases but till today registry has been made for two phases and only 89 decimals land was registered by the petitioner No.1 but he --1-- Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2017 is denying to register rest 26 decimals of land as he is demanding trice the value and on asking to execute registration the petitioners are giving out threats and abuses. 4. Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is son of petitioner No.1 respectively. He submits that for purchase of 115 decimals of land an agreement was breached between the informant and the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 was the witness on the said agreement. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR and submits that two sale deeds have been executed and 89 decimals of land have already been registered, however, the allegations are made that 26 decimals of land were not registered on the ground that more money was demanded. He submits that if such a situation is there, the case is civil in nature, however the FIR has been registered and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. 5. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer on the ground that case of cheating is made out in view of the fact that 26 decimals of land was not registered in favour of the informant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the charge sheet has been submitted and the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. 7. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it is crystal clear that the dispute is arising out of an agreement for purchase of a land being Plot No.1262, Khata No.34. In the FIR itself, it is admitted that two sale deeds have been executed, however, the allegations --2-- Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2017 are made that 26 decimals of land were not registered. Thus, the dispute is there with regard to portion of the land which was not registered and if such a situation is there it is a clear case of civil and without filing of any specific performance case the informant has lodged the criminal case and the criminal colour has been provided. Reference may be made to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randheer Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626 in paragraph No.33 and 34 which is quoted as under:- 33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, this appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge-sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra extracted above. 34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy --3-- Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2017 is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. But as observed above, in this case, no criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read with the charge- sheet so far as this appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died. 8. In view of the present case, petitioner No.1 is the vendor and petitioner No.2 is the witness and the purchaser has lodged the case alleging that 26 decimals of land was not executed/registered. Thus, the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the case of Randheer Singh (supra) and to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.11.2016 arising out of Nirsa P.S. Case No.250 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3118 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is quashed. 9.
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. 10. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is there that will be decided in accordance with law as this order has been passed only considering the criminal aspect of the matter. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/ A.F.R. --4-- Cr.M.P. No. 632 of 2017