The High Court of Jharkhand quashed proceedings against the petitioner for execution of the sale deed on the basis of power of attorney and held that without entering into the rival submissions regarding the ownership of the land in question, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had no title to sell the land, the only party who can be said to have been cheated will be the purchaser and not the complainant.
Brief Facts:
The complainant, the lawful owner of the land in question got the said land through a chain of titles. The claim of the land in question is based on a registered sale deed executed in favour of the complainant. It is alleged that the employees of M/s Rungta Mines to which accused no.4 is one of the Directors had illegally purchased the said land. The complainant aggrieved by execution of two sale deeds by the petitioner on the basis of power of attorney in favour of M/s Rungta Mines. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly issued summons against the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner had executed the sale deed on the basis of power of attorney and there was no criminality on the part of the petitioner in the execution of the sale deed as he was bonafide power-of-attorney holder in whose name the land had been duly mutated and he was paying rent to the state after being accepted as a tenant and even if it is assumed that he had no title to dispose of the land no criminal offence will be made out as it will not amount to cause any wrongful loss to the complainant, the person aggrieved can be the purchaser of the land and not the so-called owner of the said land. The counsel relied on the judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another to argue that even if the petitioner has no right to execute the sale of the deed, only the party who can aggrieved of such dispossession of the land, will be the purchaser of land nor title holder of the land.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the quashing petition and contended that the sale deed was executed by the petitioner who was not the titleholder nor the power-of-attorney was executed in his favour by the owner of the said land.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the sum and substance of the Complainant’s case is that he was the real owner of the land whereas the sale deed has been executed by the Petitioner who had power-of-attorney from a person not the owner of the said land in question. The court stated that without entering into the rival submissions regarding the ownership of the land in question, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had no title to sell the land, the only party who can be said to have been cheated will be the purchaser and not the complainant.
The court further relied on the judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another and stated that on the averments made in the Complaint Petition no prima facie offence will be made out and it will be an abuse of process to permit a continuation.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order and the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Ajay Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 292 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Namit Kumar and Ms. Preity Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
