Juman Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 32 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Cr.M.P. No. 496 of 2017
                                          -------

                  Juman Ansari                                 ....Petitioner(s).
                                    -Versus-
               1. The State of Jharkhand
               2. Gul Bahar Khan .                             ... Opp. Party(s).
                                            ------
          CORAM        :        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                Through: Video Conferencing
                                                   ------
          For the Petitioner(s)       : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate.
          For the State              : A.P.P
          For Opp. Party No. 2       : Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate.
                                                   ------

06/05.01.2021:         The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which

has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Heard the counsel for the parties.

3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Burmu P.S. Case No 32/2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 2483 of 2016, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the complaint, which was sent under Section 165(3) Cr.P.C for registering the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He further submits that no ingredients are available in this case for the offence under Sections 415 and 406 IPC. He also submits that from perusal of the complaint, it is quite clear that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat anyone. He also submits that the dispute is absolutely civil in nature, as the present case has been filed for specific performance of agreement to sale. He further submits that for registering the FIR, there is no compliance of Section 154 Cr.P.C. He also submits that no affidavit has been annexed along with complaint petition and in absence of such affidavit, the court can not refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registering the FIR. In support of his case, the counsel for the petitioner also refers and relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submits that after taking Rs.9000/- from opposite party No. 2, the petitioner has not executed the sale deed. He further submits that the complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 inter alia, stating therein that as per agreement, the petitioner should sell 44 decimals of land of Plot No. 2393 of Khata No. 19 (the name of village has not been mentioned). He further submits that as per agreement, Rs.9000/- has been paid to the accused persons and the price of land was fixed at Rs.300/- per decimals. He further submits that inspite of receipt of Rs.9000/-, the sale deed has not been executed.

6. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that the complainant has specifically stated that after receipt of Rs.9000/- and after execution of an agreement of sale, possession of the land was given to opposite party No. 2. This statement clearly suggests that the the petitioner had intention to sell/transfer the land to opposite party No. 2. The price of land was fixed Rs.300/- per decimal and thus, the total price of 44 decimals of land comes to Rs.13,200/-. Admittedly, Rs.9000/- has been paid, but there is nothing on record to suggest that as to whether, the balance amount has been paid or not, rather it has been mentioned that the complainant is ready to pay the balance amount. Thus, it is quite celar that the entire amount has not been paid to the petitioner. When the entire amount has not been paid, it is well within the domain of the seller not to execute the deed. Thus, the allegation made on the face of the complaint, does not make out any criminal offence against the petitioner. There is no ingredient of cheating and breach of trust in the complaint petition. The handing over possession of the land also suggests that there was no malicious intention on the part of the petitioner. Thus, the FIR is nothing but the same is abuse of the process of the Court and lodged to pressurize the petitioner to execute the sale deed.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the FIR being Burmu P.S. Case No 32/2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 2483 of 2016, registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby, quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition, is allowed.

Anu/C.P.-3                                                          (ANANDA SEN, J.)