Jharkhand High Court
Ayub Ali @ M.D.Ayub Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 June, 2022
1 Cr. M.P. No. 1965 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1965 of 2012
------
Ayub Ali @ M.d.Ayub Ali ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Jiaiaul Ansari ... ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Opp. Party No. 2 : None
--------
Order No. 11: Dated: 06th June, 2022
1. None has appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2.
2. Learned counsel for the parties is present.
3. Heard the parties.
4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred to
quash the entire criminal proceeding/prosecution case being Pakur
(M) P.S. Case No. 125 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 363 of 2012
wherein at the instance of O.P. No. 2 the criminal case was instituted
for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the opposite party no. 2 (the then Circle Officer,
Pakur) instituted a criminal case alleging therein that the petitioner
had purchased 7 Bigha, 8 katha and 16 dhurs lands of plot no. 105 of
J.R. No. 113 of Mouza Birgopalpur Circle Office, Pakur, which
stands recorded as Anabadi Tank in Survey settlement Khatian by
virtue of two different registered deeds of sale from (1) Parimal
Kumar Chakravety and (2) Ujjawal Kumar Dubey, both sons of late
Shiv Prasad Chakraverty of Rajapara (Pakur), P.S. Pakur (T), District
Pakur in collusion with both the vendors in order to take undue
advantage of the said Govt.Tank.
6. It has further been alleged against the petitioner that the
petitioner was the purchaser and the other co-accused persons were
the sellers on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents who
wanted to take the possession of the said tank in unlawful manner.
On the basis of the application made by the Circle Officer, Pakur a
formal case was instituted vide Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 125 of 2012
against this petitioner and other two co-accused persons who were
the purchaser and sellers of the land, and the case was registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420/ 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was
simply a purchaser of the said land under bona-fide understanding
that the land belongs to the co-accused persons, who were the
original heirs of Byomkesh Chakravarty, and full-fledged owner in
Khas peaceful possession of the whole or entire Khesras (dags) of
Jamabandi No. 113 and after his death his sole heir, successor or son
Shiv Prasad Chakravarty came into the khas peaceful possession of
the said Khesras in the capacity of full-fledged owner and likewise
the two sons (1) Parimal Kumar Chakraverty and (2) Ujjawal Kumar
Dubey had rightly sold an area of 114.75 decimal equivalent to 3
bighas, 8 kathas and 17 dhurs by one registered Kewala dastawez
and further an area of 100 decimals which comes to three bighas by
another registered kewala total an area of 6 Bighas 8 Kathas 17
dhurs out of 7 Bighas 8 Kathas 17 dhurs as a part of portion of
Khasra/dag no.105 of Jamabandi no. 113 to this petitioner for
valuable consideration, who is now in peaceful possession of it
being a bonafide purchaser. It has further been submitted on behalf
of the petitioner that the land, in question was never recorded
/entered as tank or pokhar as Government Sairat in the concerned
revenue record and that the nature of the land has never remained a
Pokhar or tank of the Government Sairat nor ever in possession of
any concerned Government.
8. It has further been pointed out that it is purely a civil nature of
matter, in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner is a bona-
fide purchaser or not or whether the land, in question, is belonging
to the Government land or not or whether the status of the land is
Pokhar or tank and thus the criminal case instituted against the
petitioner is absolutely bad in law. The Learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner has referred the various sections of the
Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act for the adjudication of the nature of
the land purchased by the petitioner in a bona fide manner from the
vendors in a civil proceeding and the Criminal case instituted
against the petitioner does not hold good and relied upon the
rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the commission of
forgery and cheating as enunciated in the case of Mohammed
Ibrahim and Others versus State of Bihar and Another [(2009) 8 SCC
751] where under in the circumstances of this case the petitioner
being a bonafide purchaser is not covered within the purview of
manufacturing false documents as defined under Sections 464 or 467
or 471 or 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation of
forgery for the purpose of cheating, if any, is against the co-accused
persons and not against this petitioner and in absence of any offence
of forgery and cheating made out against this petitioner, the F.I.R.
instituted against the petitioner as one of the accused is fit to be
quashed.
9. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and
filed the counter affidavit in this case. It is submitted on behalf of
the opposite parties that as a matter of fact the petitioner in collusion
with other co-accused persons have actually made illegal
transactions of the land, in question, which is not at all settled to
anyone as the land in question admittedly stands recorded in
Anabadi Khata i.e. holding of unsettled land as Khatiyan of the
village and the said Bomkesh Chakravarty was a recipient of the
rent of the respective land in question and not as owner and he was
actually holding the intermediary right which was actually vested in
the government, consequent upon the abolition of Zamindari under
the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and thus the said
Bomkesh Chakravarty was never holding the Raiyati interest in
respect of the said land and, therefore, the transfer of the land in
question by other co accused persons in favour of the petitioners is
null and void and illegal. It has further been pointed out that the
land in question stands recorded as Pokhar, in Anabadi Khata and
as such land is vested in the state Government, free from all
encumbrances under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950 and the said land has never been settled by the State
Government as Pokhar or Sariat to anyone and this is the main
allegation against him in the FIR. It has also been pointed out that
the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act is not at all
attracted in view of the fact that the land in question is
Government/ public land and the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
after knowing about the illegal transfer of the Government land and
after going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case
rightly ordered to take immediate legal action after instituting FIR
and, therefore, the criminal proceeding through the FIR is not an
abuse of the process of law and this Criminal Misc. Petition
instituted by the petitioner is fit to be dismissed for want of merit.
10. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
11. It appears from the perusal of the FIR that the informant Circle
Officer, Pakur alleged that the land, in question, measuring 7 bigha
8 katha and 17 dhurs situated in Mauja, Birgopalpur, appertaining
to J.B No. 113, bearing plot no. 105 within revenue Anchal Pakur
was recorded as Anabadi Pokhar tank in the last survey record. It
has been further stated that revenue karamchari had reported that
zamabandi was not created in the name of any Raiyat with respect
to the land, in question, and thus it has been stated that the said
Anbadi Pokhar recorded in the Survey settlement Record is the
property of the Government of Jharkhand after vesting of
Zamindari and the villagers of Birgopalpur have the right of public
use over the said Pokhar and the said land is used by the villagers
for agriculture. It has further been stated that the villagers of
Birgopalpur had given a complaint in which they had stated that the
petitioner Ayub Ali had been depriving the villagers from the public
right by making unlawful claim over the said pond as the petitioner
in connivance with co-accused persons Parimul Kumar Chakravarty
and Ujjwal Kumar Dubey prepared Registered deed to grab the
Government property and the same is illegal and forged document,
and accordingly, the FIR was instituted against the petitioner and
the co-accused persons who were purchasers and vendors of the
land, in question, belonging to Government property on the basis of
the forged document as alleged in the FIR.
12. Secondly, it is found that on the earlier occasion the co-
accused persons namely (1) Parimal Kumar Chakravety and (2)
Ujjawal Kumar Dubey had also filed a Cr.M.P. No. 373 of 2016 for
quashing the entire Criminal Proceedings and the same has already
been dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order
dated 19.12.2019.
13. Further, it is found from the record that after instituting the
case the investigating agency collected the evidences including the
statement of several witnesses recorded and finding the case prima
facie true after completing the investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against three accused persons including this petitioner as
one of them. Accordingly, the concerned learned court took the
cognizance of the offence and proceeded against only two co-
accused persons namely Parimal Kumar Chakravarty and Ujjwal
Kumar Dubey and kept on hold the further proceeding by observing
that there was "no coercive order" against the accused petitioner
namely Ayub Ali in the present case although the "no coercive
order" manifestly does not debar further criminal proceedings.
While on the other hand, the learned trial court after framing the
charge against two co-accused persons Parimal Kumar Chakravarty
and Ujjwal Kumar Dubey proceeded with the trial of the case and
prosecution evidence has been closed and the statement under 313
of the Cr.PC of both the co-accused persons have been recorded and
the case was pending for the defense evidence and the next date for
the defence evidence was on 05.04.2022 till the report was received
from the concerned court at Pakur as available on record.
14. In this view of the matter, it is found that after investigation
the charge sheet has been submitted against this petitioner along
with the said two co-accused persons finding substantive materials
against each and, therefore, the defence taken on behalf of the
petitioner is to be appreciated by the concerned trial court where the
case is pending at the suitable stage. It goes without saying that the
learned trial court shall appreciate all the defense pleas taken on
behalf of the petitioner when the materials are placed before it at the
appropriate stage of the criminal proceeding and the petitioner shall
have an ample opportunity to raise all these points before the
concerned trial court. In this view of matter the judgment relied
upon by the petitioner is not relevant inasmuch as in the present
case Government property is alleged to have been purchased by the
petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly. The allegations against the
petitioner along with the co-accused person are related to the
creation of the forged documents and grabbing of the Government
property and the intention of the petitioner is to be appreciated
during the course of the trial which is likely to commence against
this petitioner. Further, it goes without saying that the petitioner
will have ample opportunity to adduce evidences before the learned
court below to defend himself and at this stage of the case when the
charge sheet has been submitted, cognizance of the offence has been
taken and the further proceeding of the case is held up due to the
present Cr.M.P in hand, it is not just and fair to re-appreciate the
evidences and intervene at this stage of this case as it would amount
to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court does not find
any cogent ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding/
prosecution case arising out of Pakur P.S Case no. 125/2012
corresponding to G.R no. 363 of 2012 for the offence punishable
under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w S 34 of the IPC against the
petitioner.
15. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed being devoid of any
merit.
16. Since the case is pending for a long period of time, since 2012,
the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order
without being prejudiced to the order of this Court.
17. Let this order be sent to the concerned court below through
Fax/ E-mail to do the needful.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
