The Jharkhand High Court quashed an FIR lodged against the petitioners, who purchased a land whose title suit was pending on behalf of the company they worked for and held that the present case has been filed on the ground that the sale deed was void and illegal and that can only be the subject matter of civil dispute and cannot be a ground for filing the FIR.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition seeking the quashing of the FIR and the order taking cognizance passed by the trial court after an FIR was lodged against them for not replying to the legal notice sent in connection with the purchasing of land by the petitioners whose title was still pending against the accused.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioners had not purchased land for their purpose and they were simply employees of the company who purchased the land in question and the petitioners only acted on behalf of the said company and the present case was unnecessarily lodged against them.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in spite of the legal notice, the petitioners had not replied in spite of the legal notice and the accused, who was the co-sharer of the lank in question was having knowledge of the said suit.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the allegations transpired from the FIR were that the accused sold the land in question to the company through the petitioners who were purchasers only on behalf of the company and in the FIR itself it has been alleged that the void and illegal.
The court observed that the present case has been filed on the ground that the sale deed was void and illegal and that can only be the subject matter of civil dispute and cannot be a ground for filing the FIR.
The court further relied on the judgment in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar which held that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offense that the allegations in the FIR did not make out the required ingredients.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and the cognizance order.
Case Title: Ravi Srivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah and Mr. Kumar Vimal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aardhu Mahto, Mr. Amit Kumar Das and Mr. Saurav Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
