Md. Akhtar Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2532 Jhar

                                          1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                ----

Cr.M.P. No. 173 of 2021

----

1.Md. Akhtar Hussain, aged about 58 years, son of late Mohammad Ibrahim

2.Md. Shamim Akhtar, aged about 48 years, son of Md. Akhtar Hussain

3.Md. Nashim Akhtar, aged about 39 years, son of Md. Akhtar Hussain

4.Md. Shahnawaz, aged about 37 years, son of Md. Akhtar Hussain All are residents of village Habibpur, Kebingali, PO Sahibganj, PS Sahibganj (T), District-Sahibganj ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Radha Devi, wife of Avinash Mandal, resident of village Habibpur, Pipe Road, PO Sahibganj, PS-Sahibganj (T), District-Sahibganj ...... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate

----

5/26.07.2021 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Amritanshu Singh, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in

view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation

arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained

about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this

matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the First

Information Report in Sahibganj (T) P.S.Case No.64/2017 dated

07.08.2017 lodged under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the

IPC.

4. A complaint was filed in the court below which turns into

First Information Report alleging therein that the O.P.No.2 had purchased

a piece of land measuring 01 Katha 19 Dhurs at Mouza Kelabari, Touzi

No.599, Jamabandi No.604, Dag No.658 vide a Deed of Agreement for

sale of land from Tapan Kumar Roy for a consideration amount of

Rs.14,50,000/- and when the informant/O.P.No.2 in the month of August,

2016 went to construct house over the land then the petitioners came

there and claimed the land as purchased from one Sushil Kumar Roy.

There was a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C before the court of

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj wherein petitioners

submitted an agreement. The said agreement appears to be a forged one

and therefore the O.P.No.2-informant alleged against the petitioners as

they are intending to grab the land of the informant and hence this case.

5. Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has purchased the land

by way of agreement dated 29.01.1998 from one Sushil Roy and since

then the petitioner no.1 and his family members are in continuous

possession of the aforesaid land. He submits that no case against the

petitioners is made out and the case of the petitioners is fully covered in

the light of the judgment delivered in "Md. Ibrahim and Others v. State of

Bihar and Another" reported in (2009) 4 East. India Cri. Cases pg.6 (SC).

6. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is allegation

against the petitioners. In paragraph no.2 of the said complaint which is

the basis of First Information Report, there is also allegation of using

unparliamentary language and the allegation of forgery is there. Thus,

prima-facie it is clear that the allegation of cheating against the

petitioners are there. On a careful reading of the complaint, it cannot be

said that complaint does not disclose the commission of offence. The

ingredients of offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the

IPC cannot be said to be totally absent on the basis of the allegation in

the complaint/FIR. It is well settled that where the allegations in the

complaint/FIR are otherwise correct has to be decided on the basis of the

evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case, but simply because

of the fact that there is remedy provided for breach of contract, that does

not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is

the only remedy available to the petitioners herein. Both the criminal law

and civil law remedy can be pursued in diverse situations. As a matter of

fact they are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and

essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of criminal

law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person,

property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is

deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not,

however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases

like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil

remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two

types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. This

aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of "MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E.

Ltd. and Others" reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269. This is not a case for

exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C. No relief can be extended to

the petitioners, and accordingly, Cr.M.P. No. 173 of 2021 is dismissed.

7. The petitioners may raise all the points at an

appropriate stage in the court below.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/