Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2020
Sanjay Sinha
@ Sanjay Kumar Sinha ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Haru Mahto ..... ... Opposite Parties
with
Cr.M.P. No. 2868 of 2019
1. Pankaj Malhan
2. Chandra Prakash Pandey ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Haru Mahto ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
------
09/ 10.05.2022 By order dated 12.10.2020, notice was issued to the O.P. No.
2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2020 and also by order dated 14.01.2020, the
notice was issued to the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2868 of 2019. The
office note suggests that the notice upon the O.P. No. 2 in both the cases
have been effected.
2. On 23.08.2021 these matters were adjourned in anticipation of
appearance of O.P. No. 2. Again on 15.12.2021 these matters were
adjourned in anticipation of appearance of O.P. No. 2. Further the matters
were adjourned on 21.02.2022 and 09.03.2022 respectively, in spite of that
the O.P. No. 2 has not appeared as yet.
3. In both these cases, common questions of facts and law are
involved, as such both the matters are heard together and disposed of by
the common order.
4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Ms Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
5. Prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings including the orders dated 26.07.2019 and 30.07.2019, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with
C.P. Case No. 781 of 2019, whereby cognizance for the offences under
Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken
against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Bokaro.
6. The O.P. No. 2 has lodged the complaint case alleging
therein:-
The O.P. No. 2 Shri Haru Mahto has stated that there is 24.44
acres of land in his peaceful possession in Siyaljori Mouza consisting
of 4.75 acres in plot No. 5139, 3.80 acres in plot No. 5099, 2.93
acres in plot no. 4064 and 12.94 acres in plot No. 4231, since the
time of his ancestors, as the same was settled to his great-grandfather
Beni Mahto by the then Jamindar Uchit Mahto by patta dated
28.06.1945 and, since then they are in peaceful possession of it. A
jamabandi was created and a land title certificate was also issued in
the name of Shri Haru Mahto.
For the above mentioned land, rent has been determined from
1961 to 2004-05 by the revenue officerShri Mushtak Aalam
Chandankyari, who issued a Government receipt for the same settled
in Jamabandi No. 897, and as per the instructions of Land Revenue
Deputy Collector (LRDC), Shri Ram Kisan Tuddu, under letter No.
156 dated 20.05.2011 and Rajaswa Karamchari, Chandankyari, had
issued a Government receipt from 2005 to 20114-12, and thereafter
Government receipt was issued online for the period from 2012-
2019.
The land title certificate dated 20.07.2011 was issued for the
aforementioned land by the officer, Chandankyari.
The Land Inspector, Chandankyari had inspected the entire
land on 20.07.2011. It was mentioned in the investigation report that
pipelines had been placed along the boundary of the land belonging
to Shri Haru Mahto.
The officers of the company have encroached upon my land
by placing pipelines thereon along the boundary of the land. This
land is stated at Siyaljori Mouza No. 202, Khata No. 208, Plot No.
5139, which is 4 plots in total, amounting to 24.44 acres land.
It has been alleged that a proposal was put up by the officers
of Electrosteel Steels Ltd. to purchase the aforementioned 24.44
acres of land. For that purpose, an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-
was paid by cheque on 30.08.2008.
A case (Cr.M.P. No. 50 of 2016) was filed by Shri Rama
Shankar Singh, Officer, Electrosteel Steels Ltd. and others, before
the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, which the company
had lost. That the Hon'ble High Court had delivered the judgment in
favour of Shri Haru Mahto and had expressed that on the land of Shri
Haru Mahto there has been laying the pipelines encircled with
boundary.
The officer of Electrosteel Steels Ltd. Shri Ram Shankar
Singh and others had made a compromise on 23.02.2019 before the
learned court. It was orally stated by Shri Rama Shankar Singh and
others to Shri Haru Mahto that they have left from Electrosteel Steels
Ltd. and he can claim the payment from Vedanta Electrosteel.
It has been alleged that whenever he approaches the officers
of the Vedanta Electrosteel for claiming the payment for the
aforementioned land, the officers of the plant threatened him with
life. It is because of this reason, Shri Haru Mahto had again
approached this Court.
As per the Government rate, the value of the land owned by
Shri Haru Mahto amounts to approximately 9 crores and
employment for 25 persons.
7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that in the year 2015, a complaint case was filed,
against the erstwhile officers of Electrosteel Steels Ltd. and in that case
the compromise has been made between the parties in the Lok Adalat,
subsequently, the said Electrosteel Steels Ltd. was taken up by the Vedanta
Electrosteel Ltd. He submits that thereafter the Vedanta Electrosteel has
taken over the Electrosteel Steels Ltd. in a proceeding under Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He further submits that thereafter the present
complaint case has been filed against the employees of the newly taken
over company.
8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.07.2019, it
transpires that the learned Court has not applied its judicial mind, as to
what prima facie material are there against the petitioners are not
disclosed. However, what are the prima facie materials available against
the petitioners are required to be disclosed in the cognizance order, which
is lacking in the cases in hand. Subsequently, by order dated 30.07.2019,
the name of one of the accused was rectified, pursuant to a petition filed
by the complainant.
9. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 26.07.2019
and 30.07.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 781 of 2019, whereby
cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian
Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, are hereby, quashed and set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the same court to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
10. With the above observation and direction, this petitions is
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
