Jharkhand High Court
Ranjan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 22 of 2022
Ranjan Kumar ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sahnaz Parveen ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.
------
04/ 28.02.2022 Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Dhanbad
P.S. Case No. 394 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. The case was instituted on a written complaint given by O.P.
No. 2 on 04.10.2020 before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad P.S. stating
and alleging therein that one Ranjan Kumar in connivance with Rama
Kumari and other partners of Nirmala Nand Constructions had
mischievously grabbed Rs. 53,00,000/- by selling a flat in Malti Kunj
Apartment, Jai Prakash Nagar, Dhanbad. It is alleged in the said written
report that the flat in question which was sold to the informant was not
constructed in accordance with the provisions laid down by MADA,
Dhanbad and the whole building of Malti Kunj Apartment was
constructed on a fake and unapproved map.
It is further alleged that several other people were also
involved in the whole episode. Further it is alleged that the
informant intended to purchase a flat when her family was
approached by one Ranjan Kumar and his wife Rama Kumari who
informed them about the construction of flats under the name of
Malti Kunj Apartment which was being constructed under their firm
Nirmala Nand Construction. It is further stated by the informant that
she agreed to purchase two flats situated on fourth floor of Malti
Kunj Apartment bearing Nos. 501 and 502 which were merged into
one flat having an area of 2250 sq. ft. on being satisfied, the
informant and her husband proceed by the fake assurance of Ranjan
Sinha and his wife Rama Kumari.
It was agreed that the total purchase amount of both the flats
No. 501 and 502 was Rs. 53,00,000/- along with two parking spaces
provided in the basement of the building. On being satisfied with the
physical verification of two flats, an agreement was prepared
between both the parties to the tune of Rs. 53,00,000/- and the
money was paid by the informant to Ranjan Kumar vide different
cheque and registered agreement deed bearing registration No.
6148/5660 dated 20.08.2018 was prepared in favour of the
informant.
It is further stated that it was promised by Ranjan Sinha and
his wife that whatever construction completed during the possession
of the said flats and it was also assured on their behalf that the
completion certificate shall also be procured and handed over to the
informant, but all these assurances turned futile since the date of
lodging of the FIR, the promised works were never completed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
O.P. No. 2 has entered into a registered agreement for purchase of two
flats after paying the consideration amount of Rs. 53,00,000/-. He submits
that after payment of Rs. 53,00,000/-, the builder has completed the
works, as promised by him. He further submits that the case of the
petitioner is fully covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Versus State of Karnataka & Ors.,
reported in (2021) SCC Onlie SC 976.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is
allegation against the petitioner and only the FIR is under challenge and
he submits that if the ingredients of criminal sections are there is no bar
for civil as well as criminal prosecution. He relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayander Kumar & Ors. versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in (2014) ACR 310.
6. The court has perused the FIR. In the FIR, there is allegation
against the petitioner, as he has deviated from the sanctioned map and
there is allegation of illegal construction of Malti Kunj Apartment, which
is the subject matter of the FIR. There is also allegation of forged map of
construction. There are allegations of deviation. The hard earned money
has been invested by the O.P. No. 2 for purchasing the flats. If in the
investigation, it comes out that the building is constructed illegally and
there is deviation, the demolition of such building or part of the building
is not ruled out by the competent authority / corporation.
7. In this petition, only the FIR is under challenge and the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha (Supra), this fact was not there with
regard to sanctioned map and in that case the subject matter was
arbitration clause and that fact is entirely different from the case in hand.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the FIR. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is
dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
