1. Sushil Prasad Yadav aged about 36 years son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, and
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2881 of 2018 ------ 1. Sushil Prasad Yadav aged about 36 years son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Yadav. 2. Ramdeo Hazam aged about 57 years son of Late Gopal Hazam. 3. Ranjit Thakur, aged about 28 years son of Sri Ramdeo Thakur @ Ramdeo Hazam. All resident of Madhawadih P.O. Maheshmunda, P.S. Bengabad District Giridih. 4. Mihir Das @ Mihir Kumar Das aged about 57 years son of Late Prabhulo Das, resident of Jangalpur P.O. Sirsia P.S. Giridih (T), District Giridih. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and
Legal Reasoning
2. Shankar Thakur son of Sri Pyari Hazam (Kayam) resident Madhawwadih, P.O. Maheshmunda, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih. … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------ : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl.P.P. : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 21.06.2018 by which the learned SDJM, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable 1 Cr. M.P. No.2881 of 2018 under Section 465, 467, 471 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code as well as the entire criminal proceeding of the said Complaint Case No.1055 of 2017 against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the one another, on 06.06.2013 has created a false document purported to the land revenue receipt and has also executed the sale deed. The false document was created by tempering the original land revenue receipt issued in the name of Badku Manjhi by erasing the name of the original person whose favour fact it was issued; even though no such receipt has been issued by the concerned circle office in the name of Badku Manjhi and the same was done with the active involvement of petitioner no.4, who is a Revenue Karamchari in Bengabad Circle Office. It is further alleged that on the basis of the forged land revenue receipt, by using the said forged land revenue receipt as genuine, the petitioner no.1 purchased the land belonging to the complainant and the petitioner no.2 and 3 become witness in the said forged sale deed. 4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned SDJM, Giridih has found prima facie case and has ordered for issuance of summons vide order dated 21.06.2018 as already indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding is illegal and unjustified. It is next submitted that the complaint relates to serious civil dispute. The complainant on summon has appeared in the civil suit and filed his written 2 Cr. M.P. No.2881 of 2018 statement, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of making a false document with intent to cause damage and injury to the complainant and to support their claim of title over the land belonging to the complainant, with criminal conspiracy and active involvement of them. Under such circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and merely because the petitioner no.1 has filed a title suit that itself will not absolve him from the criminal liability of creating a false document, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegations against the petitioners of committing forgery and using a forged document as genuine. The only ground upon which the petitioners seeks quashing of the order by which summons has been ordered to be issued after filing of essential requisites by the complainant, passed by the learned SDJM, Giridih and the entire criminal proceeding is that the allegations against the petitioners are false and a civil suit is pending between the parties. It is a settled principle of law that if otherwise a criminal case is made out against the petitioner merely because a civil suit is pending between the parties, will not be a bar in prosecuting a criminal proceeding 3 Cr. M.P. No.2881 of 2018 against any person. The contention of the petitioner that they are innocent, can only be ascertained in a full-dress trial of the case. It is a settled principle of law that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in order to stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 8. It is also a settled principle of law that High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon inquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable as that would be the concern of the trial Court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of inquiry witnesses; as already discussed in detail, in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement are sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 465, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code; in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner, of being in criminal conspiracy with the co- accused persons, created a false document i.e. the rent receipt, by deleting the name of the original person in the rent receipt, in whose name the rent receipt was issued and inserting the name of Badku Manjhi in place and space of the deleted person, so as to appear that in fact the rent receipt in fact was issued in in favour of Badku Manjhi. 10. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of 4 Cr. M.P. No.2881 of 2018 Complaint No.1055 of 2017 or the order dated 21.06.2018 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of this Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 26.11.2019, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th of November, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj 5 Cr. M.P. No.2881 of 2018