Rajdeep Singh, aged about 38 years S/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh, resident of House v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shakti Singh Son of Late Sh. Binod Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 ---- Rajdeep Singh, aged about 38 years S/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh, resident of House No.1795, First Floor, Phase 3B2, Near Hanuman Mandir, SAS Nagar Mohali, (Aadhar Card No.5162- 2443-9356), P.O., P.S. & District – SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shakti Singh Son of Late Sh. Binod Singh, Resident of Panch Mohan Chowk, Amla Toli, Daltonganj, Daltonganj, Palamu, Jharkhand .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate :- Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate :- Mr. A.K. Jha, Advocate :- Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, AC to SC (L&C)-I For Respondent. No.2 :- Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate 10/29.07.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, :- Mrs. Ishaani Singh, Advocate ---- learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 2.
Decision
The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in respect of Chandwa P.S. Case No.123 of 2023 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Latehar. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the --1-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 respondent No.2 has filed one complaint before the learned ACJM, Latehar vide Complaint No.376 of 2022. The complaint was filed on 22.09.2022 by respondent No.2. In the complaint, the respondent No.2 has alleged that on 17.02.1988, late father of the respondent No.2 has entered into an agreement for purchasing the 32.56 acres of land in his name and in the name of his other family members. This land was the joint share holding of Sardar Harbans Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sidheshwar Singh and Babu Ram Sawroop Singh. At the time of execution of sale deed, the father of respondent No.2 has unfortunately died and the sale deed was executed in the name of mother, brother Satyendra Singh and uncle etc. of respondent No.2 Prior to the year 1988, Revisional Survey of District Latehar was started and during that name of sellers were entered as share holders. After that name of purchasers were also entered in that as share holder. But name of sellers have to be removed from Khatian (Consolidation) which was not removed and due to that in the revisional survey, revenue entries, the name of sellers were entered i.e. Harbans Singh and Gurdeep Singh etc. The respondent No.2 has further alleged in his complaint that by taking the benefit of revisional survey, accused have prepared the forged consent letter of respondent No.2 and his family members as well as by forging the signatures of Sarpanch Manti Devi by showing the consent letter, the valuable part of land --2-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 of our people has been shown in their share and on the basis of forged documents the accused No.1 (Petitioner) has executed sale deed in favour of accused No.2 to 7 (Purchasers). The Sarpanch has given in writing that no consent letter was presented before her and on the consent letter her forged signatures were prepared. In the consent letter, petitioner has also made the forged signatures of his uncle Sh. Satbir Singh. When these signatures were shown to all those persons out of that some persons have given in writing that the consent letter was prepared with their forged signatures. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.2 has given the list of 7 witnesses out of that 4 witnesses did not turn up before the learned lower Court to adduce their preliminary evidence in the complaint which is a material flaw in the complaint filed before the learned ACJM, Latehar. 4. Mr. Pankaj Maini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said complaint case was sent by the learned Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based upon the FIR pursuant to that the case has been registered in the Chandwa P.S. in the district of Latehar. He further submits that the erstwhile owner Sh. Lal Sahdev has sold 32.56 acres of land in favour of four persons that is Gurdeep Singh, Shri Harbans Singh, Shri Ram Sarup Singh and Shri Sidheshwar Singh, who are deceased now by executing the sale deed on 24.09.1973. He then submits that the purchasers have sold the land on 17.02.1988 in favor of Smt. Malti --3-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 Devi wife of Shri Binod Singh, Satyendra Kumar Singh son of Late Shri Binod Singh, Jitendra Singh son of Late Vishwanath Singh and Vishwanath Singh son of Late Sh. Radhey Singh. When the sale deed was executed, consolidation was going on which came to an end on 10.01.1994. He further submits that the petitioner’s forefather were became a co-sharer to the extent of 12.40 acres of land. The petitioner has got total land of 9.30 acres of land (share of his father Gurdeep Singh and 50% share from his grandfather Shri Harbans Singh. However, now they have left for their heavenly abode. He further submits that the respondent No.2 and his family has not preferred to challenge the revenue entries before the competent authorities till 12.06.2022. In the meantime, Satyendra Kumar Singh and Sangram Singh has entered into an agreement to sell for their share of land at Chandigarh on 09.06.2022 and received Rs.13,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.24,75,000/- and for the specific performance, a Suit is instituted being Civil Suit No.688 of 2023 which is pending before the Competent Court at Chandigarh instituted by the petitioner. He further submits that only the share of the petitioner has been sold and the false allegations are made on the basis of that learned Court has transferred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He submits that the complaint case was filed on 22nd September, 2022 and in the said complaint another affidavit was taken by the learned Court on 16th November, 2022 which clearly --4-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 suggests that he has already entertained the said petition under Section 200 and other sections of Cr.P.C. as such the matter transferred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was not in accordance with law. He further submits that if any case is made out that is civil in nature and falsely the present case has been filed against the petitioner and in view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed and to buttress his argument, he relied on certain judgments such as Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court for applying of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not followed. In the same line, he further relied in the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439. 5. On the point of civil proceeding converted into the criminal proceeding, he relied in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124. 6. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that in light of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to that the police has registered the case and the investigation is still going on. She submits that in view of that this Court may not exercise his --5-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 submits that in paragraph No.8 of the writ petition wrong assertion has been made and he denied the statement that late father of the respondent No.2 has entered into an agreement for purchasing 32.56 acres of land in his name and the name of his family members. This land was the joint share holding of Shri Harbans Singh, Shri Gurdeep Singh, Shri Ram Sarup Singh and Shri Sidheshwar Singh and before execution of the sale deed, the father of the respondent No.2 has unfortunately died and the sale deed was executed in the name of mother and brother namely Satyendra Singh and uncle of respondent No.2. He submits that thereafter the petitioner has prepared the forged consent letter of respondent and his family members and even forged the signature of Mukhiya namely Smt. Malti Devi and by showing such consent letter, the valuable part of the land which falls on the part of the respondent No.2 and his family members has been executed by way of sale deed on the basis of post consent letter by the petitioner to the accused No.2 to 7. He submits that on the basis of the forged consent letter including the signature of respondent No.2 one Ram Sarup Singh along with other members the sale deed was executed as such the criminal case is made out. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure-2 which is the death certificate of Babu Ram Sarup Singh who died on 27.07.2011 wherein the consent letter on --6-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 behalf of Ram Sarup Singh is signed on 28.01.2022. He submits that in view of this fact, it is crystal clear that the manipulation has been made. He further draws the attention of the Court to the PAN Card of Shakti Singh, who is the respondent No.2 as well as the consent letter and submits that in the PAN Card and in the consent letter, the signature of the Shakti Singh are different which is also forged one. He submits that these are the facts and prima facie case is made out in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. 9. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the dispute is there with regard to the execution of the sale deed in favour of accused No.2 to 7. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 are the co-sharer and how the property has been sold has been noted in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 which itself suggests that there are dispute with regard to the said agreement. The death certificate contained in Annexure-2 of Babu Ram Sarup Singh clearly suggests that he has already been left for his heavenly abode on 27.07.2011, however, the consent letter was signed by Ram Sarup Singh on 28.01.2022. The signature on the PAN card of Shakti Singh is prima facie completely different in comparison with the consent letter signed by the Shakti Singh in the consent letter, who happened to be the respondent No.2. These --7-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 facts prima facie suggests that such manipulation has been made to sell the property as such prima facie case against the petitioner is made out. 10. So far sending the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is well settled that if cognizable case is made out, the learned Court is competent to send it under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, however, if the Court decided to proceed under Chapter XV as well as the other relevant section of that chapter he is required to examine the witnesses on his own to find out prima facie case. The complaint case was registered on 22.09.2022 and thereafter another affidavit was taken by the learned Court on November, 2022 which clearly suggests that he has treated the said complaint petition under Section 200 and other Sections of Cr.P.C. and once he has treated it under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. it is required to examine the things in the light of Chapter XV and 202 of Cr.P.C. This aspect is well settled in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Priyanka Srivastava as well as Ram Dev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as such the order dated 18th January, 2023 passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as FIR being Chandwa P.S. Case No.123 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Latehar is hereby quashed. --8-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023 11. The complaint petition is restored to the file of the learned Court who will move in the light of Chapter XV and 202 of Cr.P.C. and will pass the order in accordance with law without prejudice of this order. 12. This petition is allowed in part and disposed of in above terms. 13. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/ A.F.R. --9-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 534 of 2023