1. Ezaj Ansari @ Ezaz Ansari, aged abot 38 years, S/o Hazi Nejam Ansari v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satiful Ansari @ Safiq Ansari, S/o Late Manan
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2020 1. Ezaj Ansari @ Ezaz Ansari, aged abot 38 years, S/o Hazi Nejam Ansari 2. Neyaz Ansari @ Neyaz Ahmed, aged about 36 years, S/o Hazi Nejam Ansari Both r/o vill. Naya Toli Mohalla, P.O.- Bargain, P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satiful Ansari @ Safiq Ansari, S/o Late Manan Ansari, R/o Baragain, P.O.- Lame Baragain, P.S.- Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Adv. For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Saman Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC II 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 CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 3502 of 2018 whereby and where under learned JMFC, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 34 of IPC inter alia against the petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that at the instance of the petitioner no. 1, the co-accused Shamma Praveen claiming to be a descendant of the father of the complainant, executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused Sahabaz Ahmad and Sahabaz Ahmad executed a sale deed in favor of Amina Khatoon. On the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation, the statement of the enquiry witnesses, learned JMFC has passed the 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2020 said order dated 24.05.2019 in connection with Complaint case no. 3502 of 2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, para 16, 17 and 20 of which reads as under :- “16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. 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.” submits that in this case the allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused person is not of executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner to execute the sale deed but the deed has been executed describing the co-accused to be the owner of the property against the another co-accused, so such a document will not come under the ambit of false document as defined under section 464 of the IPC. 5. It is next submitted that sale deed has not been executed in favour of the complainant. The purchaser has no grievance so at best, cheating was done to the purchaser but certainly, the complainant 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2020 cannot claim to have been cheated. So, the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 also not made out. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal case will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing cheating as well as forgery for the purpose of cheating in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (supra) that since the sale deed has not been executed by or on behalf of the co-accused person, against co- accused persons, by impersonation or by falsely implicating to be the authorized person empowered by the owner to execute the deed on behalf of the owner rather the sale deed has been executed claiming that the co-accused herself is the owner of the property, hence, in the considered opinion of this court, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC is not made out. 8. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC are concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having cheated or dishonestly induced the complainant to part with any property rather the alleged cheating is against the co- accused who purchased the property but the co-accused who purchased the property has no grievance against the seller of the property. Under such circumstances, this court is of the 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2020 considered view that offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC is also not made out. 9. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences for which, prima facie case was found by the learned JMFC, Ranchi hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 3502 of 2018 be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 3502 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.
Decision
11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 2nd December, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2020