Jharkhand High Court
Hrideshwar Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1188 of 2014
1. Hrideshwar Prasad Mishra
2. Srimati Kumari Devi ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Anil Kumar Gupta
3. Smt. Rakhi Chakravorty
4. Haradhan Chakravorty ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rajni Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
------
18/ 12.04.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2013, by
which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection
with C.P. Case No. 1490 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging
therein that a complaint dated 10.06.2013 was filed before the court of Sri
Anand Prakash, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, which
was numbered as Complaint Case No. 1490/2013. In the complaint
petition it is alleged that Accused No-1(Smt. Rakhi Chakravorty) and
Accused No- 2 (Haradhan Chakravorty) of the Complaint Petition
respectively were the residents of Shalimar, Punjabi Mohalla and they
were having one residential house and they were in a dire need of money
and they induced the Complainant/O.P. No-2 on 31.1.12 to mortgage their
said house for a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty
Thousand) only for twelve months and accordingly the Complainant/O.P.
No-2 paid the said sum to the Accused No-1 & Accused No-2 respectively
who mortgaged their said house.
It is further alleged that Accused No-1 and Accused No-2 put
the Complainant in belief that they would return Rs. 6,80,000/-
within twelve months as per Agreement and if they failed to return
the said sum in that event the ownership of the house would be
transferred to the Complainant/O.P. No-2.
It is further alleged that on 9.6.2013 the Complainant/O.P. No-
2 came to learn that the accused persons in connivance with the
Accused No-3 & 4 (Petitioner No-1 & 2) have played a game
of cheating and without returning the amount to the
Complainant/O.P. No- 2 has sold the said mortgaged house on
2.4.2013 payment of a consideration amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-
(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs) only in favour of the Accused No-3(Smt.
Kumari Devi i.e. Petitioner No-1) & Accused No-2 (Hirdesheshwar
Prasad Mishra i.e. Petitioner No-2) and for that the advance payment
has been made by the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs) only of the said consideration amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-
only and thereafter on Registered Deed of Sale has been executed by
the Accused No-1 and Accused No-2 in favour of the the petitioners
on receipt of full and final consideration amount.
It is further alleged that the petitioners had prior knowledge
regarding the mortgage but in spite of the same they purchased the
house in question.
It is further alleged that on 9.6.13 the Complainant/O.P. No-2
met with the accused persons and wanted to know the reason for
transfer upon which he was abused and Accused No-1 & 2 gave
threat to commit suicide.
4. Mrs. Rajni Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the property in question, which was the subject
matter of the complaint case, was purchased by these petitioners from
accused Nos. 1 and 2. She submits that the said property was kept as
security for certain amount taken by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. She further
submits that the said property was sold by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in
favour of these petitioners and the petitioners were not knowing about the
fact that the said property was kept as security, however, in good faith,
these petitioners have purchased the property in question. On these
grounds, she submits that no case of cheating against these two petitioners
are made out.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- was
taken by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, that's why they have kept the property
in question as security deposit and the said amount was not paid, and in
spite of the disposal of the said property to the petitioners, the amount has
not been returned. In that view of the matter, he submits that the case is
made out against the petitioners.
6. Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State
submits that the learned court has taken the cognizance after looking into
the solemn affirmation and the enquiry witnesses.
7. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has
gone through the materials available on record and finds that so far as
these two petitioners are concerned, they are the bona fide purchasers of
the property and the sale deed as well as mutation receipt are also on the
record, which suggest that the property was bona fidely purchased by the
petitioners. If any case is made out, that is against the accused Nos. 1 and
2. The petitioners are only the bona fide purchasers and in this regard
reference may be made to the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Versus State of
Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
8. In view of the above facts and reasons, the court finds that the
petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the property in question and
also in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Md. Ibrahim (Supra) to allow to continue the proceeding against the
petitioners will amount to an abuse of the process of laws.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2013, by which, cognizance for the
offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has
been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1490
of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.
10. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
11. It is made clear that this court has not interfered with the
complaint case or the order taking cognizance so far as other accused
persons are concerned and the learned court shall proceed in the matter in
accordance with law.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
