Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Dixit vs Union Of India Through on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 607 of 2021
Manoj Kumar Dixit ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate.
: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
: Ms Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
------
04/ 12.12.2022 Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
27.02.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, in connection
with R.C. Case No. 09(S)/2013 EOW-R, by which, the petition for discharge
filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, pending in the court of
learned said court.
3. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the discharge petition, filed under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court by order dated 27.02.2020. He
submits that with respect to mutation of the land in question, the petitioner
has not played any role, as he has discharged only his official duty. He
submits that for mutation, the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of
Records) Act, 1973 is there. He refers to Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 25 and 36 of
the said Act. He further submits that if there is illegality in the impugned
order, there is provision of appeal under Section 15 and there is also
provision of revision under Section 16 of the said Act. He further submits
that no proceeds of crime has been received by the petitioner, however,
cognizance for the offence under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner.
4. On the above grounds, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily been made accused in
the case, as such, he may kindly be discharged from the case.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing
for the CBI submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the
learned Special Judge has dealt minutely with the allegation against the
petitioner. He submits the lands in question have been sold to the Sanjeevani
Buildcon Private Limited and thereafter the said lands were sold by the
Sanjeevani Buildcon to the others.
6. In view of such submissions of the parties, the court has gone
through the materials available on record. The chargesheet has also been
available on record, which suggests that the petitioner, at that point of time
was the Circle Inspector, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi. During the period of
allegation, Smt. Anita Dayal Nandi had submitted an application on
04.10.2008 for mutation, being Khata No. 41, plot No. 261 rakba 32
decimals and khata No. 41, plot No. 262 rakba 18 decimals with registry
papers in her name. Om Prakash Yadav, the then Circle Officer, Anchal Ratu
had endorsed the said papers for enquiry to the then Rajasav Karamchari
Firoz Khan and Manoj Kumar Dixit, the Circle Inspector (the petitioner
herein) in respect to mutation case No. 1233R27/08-09. It has been alleged
that without any enquiry, the report has been submitted before the Circle
Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi. Learned court has considered this aspect of the
matter.
7. It has come in the impugned order that the then Circle Inspector
Manoj Kumar Dixit (the petitioner herein) and the then Rajashwa
Karamchari Firoz Khan had submitted the enquiry report and also No
Objection regarding the property, after that the said land was mutated in the
name of Anita Dayal Nandi by co-accused Om Prakash Yadav, the then
Circle Officer, Ratu Circle, Ranchi in connivance with others.
8. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the criminal
breach of trust and ingredients are with respect to entrustment with property,
or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of
that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or
wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of
trust. In the case in hand, prima facie, the case under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code is made out. Reference may be made to the case of
Kailash Kumar Sanwati Versus The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in
(2003) 7 SCC 399.
9. Once there is fraudulent and dishonest intention is there,
automatically Section 420 IPC is attracted, however, these are the subject
matter of trial, which can be decided only after consideration of the
argument of the prosecution and defence. There are parameters of
considering the discharge petition as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in several cases including the recent judgment
in the case of State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Versus R.
Soundirarasu, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1150.
10. There is no illegality in the impugned order, rejecting the
discharge petition of the petitioner by the learned Court. No relief can be
extended to the petitioner. As such, this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
