Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Son Of Late Ashrafi ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 22 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 4168 of 2018
----
Dinesh Kumar son of late Ashrafi Baitha, resident of Flat No.402, A Block,
SB Residency, Sekhpura, P.O. Veterinary College, P.S. Hawai Adda,
District Patna 800014, Bihar.
... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance (now ACB)... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shreshtha, Spl. P.P.
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 08.04.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 22.04.2022
In this criminal miscellaneous petition, petitioner has prayed for
quashing the order taking cognizance dated 24.10.2011 and all subsequent
proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 2002 (Special
Case No.60 of 2002) for the offence under Sections 430, 467, 468, 471, 120B,
109, 201, 423, 424, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, case of the prosecution needs to be taken note of. When it came to
light that in a proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms
Act, pertaining to the land measuring an area of 38 acres, the then D.C.L.R.,
Ranchi, himself took decision in the matter without referring to the matter
before the State Government some foul play was suspected to have taken
place and, therefore, the matter was ordered to be inquired into and,
accordingly, it was inquired into by the Police Inspector, Vigilance Bureau,
Ranchi. During inquiry, it was found that the land appertaining to Khata No.87,
Plot Nos.4, 5 and 6 measuring an area of 48.66 acres, situated at village
Bargaon, Namkom, was recorded as Gairmazurwa Malik land. In spite of that
the ex-landlord Hari Charan Sahu, settled 25 acres of land, out of 48.66 acres,
in the yer 1948 to Smt. Bhagwati Devi and further 16 acres of the land to
Durga Pd. Agarwal. In the year 1956, Smt. Bhagwati Devi sold 2 acres of the
land, out of 25 acres, to Thakur Jagdish Narayan Singh by way of registered
sale deed. After the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, her two sons Dwarika
Nandan Modi and Devki Nandan Modi sold the rest 23 acres of the land by
way of registered sale deed to Smt. Laxmi Devi, Urmila Devi and Sudama
Devi, who were the daughters-in-law of the then landlord Hari Charan Sahu.
Similarly, Durga Pd. Agarwal sold 16 acres of the land in the year 1959 to Smt.
Simalo Devi, the wife of the ex-landlord Hari Charan Sahu by virtue of
registered sale deed.
On the basis of the said sale deed, all those purchasers got their
names mutated against the land sold to them. But, subsequently, in the year
1975-76, the then Circle Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of
the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and stopped issuing rent receipt to the
purchasers. Thereupon, an application was filed for issuance of rent receipt.
Upon such application, the then Circle Officer registered Misc. Cases in the
year 1979-80, wherein it was recorded that earlier it had been settled to the
military temporarily and then it was under the use of the public but that land
was settled by the ex-landlord in the year 1948 to Kith and Kins, which
settlement apparently appears to be illegal. On making such comments, the
matter was referred to DCLR, Ranchi for initiating the proceeding. Upon
initiating the proceeding, the then DCLR, Ranchi, asked the then Circle Officer,
Namkom, to submit enquiry report. Accordingly, the then Circle Officer, Dinesh
Kumar submitted a report on 14.11.1990. Upon such report, the then DCLR
Subodh Kumar Gupta vide its order dated 27.12.1990, sent the matter before
S.D.O. after making recommendation for dropping of the said proceeding
initiated under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The then SDO also
agreed with the recommendation made by the DCLR. Accordingly, he referred
the matter before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, who dropped the
proceeding by holding therein that no case is made out for reopening the
proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the case
was closed. In spite of the case being closed, the record was never sent to the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, rather it was sent back again to the office of
LRDC, Ranchi. Subsequently, it appears that again a proceeding under
Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, over the same land, was initiated
by the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Against initiation of the proceeding,
one Laxmi Devi and others approached the High Court and filed a writ
application, which application was disposed of by directing the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi to take final decision over the matter. Accordingly, the
then Deputy Commissioner passed a final order on 17.11.1993. Against that
order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Ranchi. The
Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
on 16.03.1994. Against that order, again a writ application was filed vide
C.W.J.C. No.3007 of 1997(R), which was allowed and the orders passed by
the then Deputy Commissioner and also the Commissioner, Ranchi were set
aside by order dated 20.02.2003. Being aggrieved with that order, the State
preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No.64 of 2010, which was
dismissed on 25.01.2011, but, before that the Vigilance lodged the case
alleging therein that all the accused persons including the petitioner, who at
the relevant point of time was posted as Circle Officer, in connivance with the
land holders did commit illegality, whereby the State was put to a great loss.
Upon completion of the investigation when the charge sheet was submitted,
cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against the petitioner,
which is under challenge.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner in this case was the then Circle Officer,
Namkom and the highest allegation against him is that he opined that
proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act can be initiated
and forwarded a note. After considering the statement of some of the
witnesses, he has opined that no proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act can be initiated. He submits that the aforesaid act of this
petitioner cannot attract any offence. He submits that petitioner's note was
forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, DCLR and other higher officials, who
also concurred with his view and thereafter the matter was dropped. He
submits that later on the authorities, without jurisdiction, suo moto initiated a
proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. He submits that
so far as other Government Officials are concerned, this Court has quashed
the entire criminal proceeding in an application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and the same was not interfered with by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition. He refers to the order passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. M.P. No.546 of 2012 and W.P.(Cr.)
No.134 of 2010. It is further submitted that a writ application was filed being
C.W.J.C. No.3007 of 1997(R), challenging the initiation of fresh proceeding. In
the said writ application, the High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner
has got no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceeding under Section 4(h) of the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, when earlier proceeding under the same provision
was disposed of and decided. This order, involving the same land in question,
which is subject matter of the criminal case, was challenged in L.P.A. No.64 of
2010, which was dismissed, as there was huge delay of 2518 days in filing the
Letters Patent Appeal. He submits that the aforesaid order has now attained
finality, so on this additional ground also, the criminal proceeding cannot be
allowed to continue.
4 Learned Special P.P. appearing for the State submitted that this
petitioner being the Circle Officer, had wrongly opined that proceeding under
Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act cannot be initiated and, thus, has
committed an offence under Sections 430, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 201,
423, 424, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. The facts of the case have been noted in paragraph 2 above. It is
an admitted case of both the parties that the only overt act on the part of the
petitioner is that he has prepared a note in which, he has opined that no
proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act can be initiated
in the facts of the case. His opinion was accepted by higher officials and the
proceeding was dropped. Only when the administration changed, this matter
was reopened. This reopening was challenged in a writ application being
C.W.J.C. No.3007 of 1997(R), which was allowed and the High Court had held
that reopening is bad. A letters patent appeal challenging the said order
passed in the writ application was preferred and the said letters patent appeal
was also dismissed.
6. To initiate a criminal proceeding, there must be an overt act or
some action, which constitutes an offence. Giving a note in an administrative
file without any supporting evidence that the same was made with a malafide
intention or after obtaining some illegal gratification, does not make out any
offence. Further, from the first information report, itself, it is quite clear that
there are no ingredients of forgery for which a proceeding can be continued for
committing an offence under Sections 467, 471, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is no allegation in the entire first information report and it is also not the
case of the prosecution that any document has been forged. Case at best is of
wrong opinion or a case of wrong assessment. This cannot attract a criminal
offence. Further, I find that in respect of similarly situated co-accused wherein
allegations are more or less similar, Cr. M.P. No. 546 of 2012 and W.P.(Cr.)
No.134 of 2010, this High Court has quashed the proceedings against the
petitioners in those cases. The State could deny the aforesaid fact.
7. Considering the facts of this case and the judgments/orders of this
Court referred to above, I find that in this case no criminal offence is made out
so far as the petitioner is concerned in connection with Vigilance Police Station
Case No.52 of 2002 [Special Case No.60 of 2002]. Thus, I am inclined to allow
this criminal miscellaneous petition. The order taking cognizance dated
24.10.2011 and all subsequent proceeding in connection with Vigilance P.S.
Case No.52 of 2002 (Special Case No.60 of 2002) so far as the petitioner is
concerned are hereby quashed.
8. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
