The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in order to constitute the offense punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be an entrustment or dominion over the property and besides that, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of legal direction of any legal contract.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that Petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the agnates of the informant and sold one and a half decimals of land in excess of their share to Petitioner nos. 3 & 4. The FIR was registered for the offenses punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC in order to quash the criminal proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the allegations against the Petitioner are false and vague and there exists no allegation of impersonation. It was furthermore submitted that the land dispute is also going on between the parties regarding the partition of the share of the ancestral land and the informant has already filed a Partition Suit in the Court of Civil Judge which is still sub-judice.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is a well-established legal principle that there must be an entrustment or dominion over the property and besides that, there must be an act of misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, or use against the legal direction of any legal contract, is necessary for the offense covered by Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code to be committed.
The Court noted that if at all, the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have no right, title, or interest over the land having sold to the petitioner nos. 3 & 4, obviously no right, title, or interest in respect of the land sold could be acquired by the purchasers of the said land but certainly the same is insufficient to constitute the offense punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case title: Uma Devi V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 4171 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.familyfirstsolicitors.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Mesher-and-marrtin-order-768x512.jpg
