Nand Kishore Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1446 Jhar

                                           1                         Cr.M.P. No. 1659 of 2012




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1659 of 2012

----

1.Nand Kishore Prasad, s/o late Bajo Sao, r/o Village Jarmune, Tola-Saria Road, Bagodar, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, District -Giridih

2.Raj Kishore Prasad, s/o Sri Ramchandra, r/o Village Jarmune, Hazaribagh Road, Bagodar, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, District -Giridih

3.Sushila Devi, w/o Mangar Sao, r/o Hundro, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

4.Rameshwar Sao, s/o Tulo Sao, r/o Village Jarmune, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, District -Giridih .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Yogeshwar Sao @ Dashrath Sao, s/o late Churaman Sao, r/o Village Jarmune, Tola-Manjiladih, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, District-Gioridih .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioners         :-     Mr. Yashvardhan Sahay, Advocate
                                          Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate
                                          Mr. Mohini Priya, Advocate
       For the State               :-     Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
       For the O.P.No.2            :-     Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
                                          ----

7/03.04.2023        Heard    Mr.   Yashvardhan     Sahay,   the   learned     counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.845 of 2009

and the cognizance order dated 01.03.2011, pending in the court of

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.

The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the

petitioners got four sale deed executed by Shakuntala Devi on

07.03.2009 over which accused no.4 Dilo Mistry and accused no.5

Rameshwar Sao identified Smt. Sushila Devi, the executants and accused

no.6 became witness in the aforesaid four sale deeds. The complainant

has stated in the said case that Sushila Devi had no right to sell and

execute the aforesaid four sale deeds which was registered before the

District Sub Registrar Office, Giridih. It is stated that when the accused

nos.1 and 2 produced papers in the police station in a proceeding under

section 144 Cr.PC, then the complainant came to know about it. The

complainant obtained a copy of the sale deeds and tried to solve the

matter in Panchayat then they instituted the present case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

allegations are made in the complaint that the said land was sold by

Sushila Devi to the petitioners by four different sale deeds. He submits

that before the order taking cognizance the complainant has already filed

the title suit in the court of learned Sub Judge, Giridih on 24.05.2010

which was numbered as Title Suit No.70 of 2010 wherein the prayer is

made for declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the

land described in schedule-A and for declaration that the four sale deeds

described are invalid, without consideration and not binding on them. He

submits that in the said sale deeds the petitioners and Sushila Devi were

also defendants. He submits that in that view of the matter the entire

criminal proceeding is vitiated and for civil wrong the criminal case has

been filed and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of "Usha

Chakraborty and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another", 2023

LiveLaw (SC) 67. Paragraph no.11 of the said judgment is quoted below:

"11. We will now, carefully scan the application filed by the respondent herein which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. to consider whether the appellant is justified in taking up the contention that the allegations raised thereunder did not contain the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences or whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case for investigation. In that regard it is worthwhile to take note of the fact that the respondent herein has

alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. We will refer to the ingredient to constitute such offences to consider the said question."

On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal

proceeding may kindly be quashed.

On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.2 submits that the O.P.no.2 has

purchased five decimal of land. The petitioner no.1 purchased from

O.P.No.2 in the year 1998 whereas the said land has again being

purchased by the petitioner from the petitioner no.3. He further submits

that the learned LRDC in Mutation Case has found that the petitioner

no.3 Sushila Devi is not having any evidence that her name has recorded

in the Register-II and accordingly that has been dismissed and he

submits that the this petition may kindly be dismissed.

Mr. Allam, the learned counsel for the respondent State

submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for

the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds

that admittedly for disputed sale deeds the complaint case has been

filed. The title suit has already been filed by the O.P.no.2 before the

order taking cognizance for declaration of right, title and interest. The

contention of the Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2

with regard to the order passed by the learned LRDC in mutation case is

not a ground to dismiss this petition considering that the mutation entry

in the revenue records does not confer any right, title and interest in

favour a person and the mutation entry of revenue record is only for the

fiscal purpose and if there is any dispute with regard to right, title and

interest and accordingly that mutation is sought to be made on the basis

of the claim of the sale deed the same is required to be decided by the

competent court of civil jurisdiction and in this regard a reference may be

made to the case of "Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and

Ors.", Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 wherein at paragraph

nos. 6 and 6.1 it has been held that:

"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

6.1. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v.

Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70."

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case with

respect to the issue involved, the Court comes to the conclusion that this

is a civil nature of case, the O.P.No.2 has already approached the

jurisdictional civil court and instituted civil suit and is pending and for

that criminal case has been filed. There is no doubt that if the criminality

is made out, the civil case as well as the criminal case can go

simultaneously, however, if criminality is not made out, to allow the

proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of process of law.

The O.P.No.2 has filed the suit which is still pending. Further in the said

suit, the parties herein including Sushila Devi are parties in the said suit.

In view of the above, this is a case to invoke power under

section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with

Complaint Case No.845 of 2009 and the cognizance order dated

01.03.2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Giridih is quashed.

Cr.M.P. No. 1659 of 2012 is allowed and disposed of.

It is made clear that pending suit shall be decided on its

own merit without being prejudiced with this order.

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,