Navin Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2642 Jhar

                               1                Cr.M.P. Nos. 464 of 2018 with 443 of 2018




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Cr.M.P. No. 464 of 2018

1.

Navin Kumar Sinha, son of Late Jagat Narayan Prasad, aged about 54 years, resident of Diwantola Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih (M), Dist.- Giridih

2. Anju Sinha, wife of Navin Kumar Sinha, aged about 42 years, resident of Diwantola Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih (M), Dist.- Giridih ...... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Amit Narain, son of Sri Indra Narayan Prasad, resident of Village- Andudih, Diwantola, Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih (M), Dist.- Giridih

..... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 443 of 2018

1. Smt. Sandhya Rani (aged about 76 years) Wife of Sri Krishna Deo Prasad Sinha, resident of House No. 38, Road No.-2 East Patel Nagar, Gandhi Murti, P.O. & P.S. Shastri Nagar, Dist. Patna (Bihar)

2. Smt. Kanti Prasad (aged about 72 years), wife of Sri Uday Shankar Prasad, resident of House No. B/136, Birla Colony, Near Durga Mandir, Birla Colony, Phulwari, P.O. & P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist. -Patna (Bihar)

3. Smt. Sanighda Prasad (aged about years), wife of Nawakl Kishore Ambastha, resident of Flat No. 204, RJ Enclave, Gokul Path, Near Makhan Market, Patel Nagar Shastri Nagar Phulwari, P.O. & P.S. Phulwarisharif, Dist. Patna (Bihar)

4. Smt. Shefali Prasad (aged about 68 years), wife of Sri Mukul Manohar Verma, resident of House No 24 B, Road No. 3, Rajendra Nagar, Sampatchak P.O. & P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Dist - Patna (Bihar) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Amit Narayan, son of Sri Indra Narayan Prasad, resident of Village- Andudih, Diwantola, Pachhamba, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih (M), Dist.- Giridih

For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S.Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit, Adv.

 For the State                :Ms.Lily Sahay, Addl.PP
                               Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP
 For the O.P. No. 2         : Mr. P.C. Roy, Adv.
                              Mr. Sunil Kr. Sinha, Adv.


                           PRESENT





             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY



By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. These two criminal miscellaneous petition have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 17.08.2017 in connection with Complaint case no. 1460 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, learned JMFC, Giridih took cognizance against the petitioners of both the cases for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 120B of IPC and directed for issuance of summons, hence, both these two criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have forged one rent receipt in criminal conspiracy with one another by inserting Khata no. 187 besides khata number 196 in the said rent receipt and they have used the forged document as genuine one and on the basis of the same, sold land belonging to the complainant.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners of Cr.M.P no. 443 of 2018 and learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P no. 464 of 2018 jointly submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and, the entire allegation made in the complaint is manufactured one. The land in question has been sold by the petitioners on the basis of the family partition by the partition deed dated 25.12.2004. It is next submitted that the complainant is one of the witnesses in the sale deed wherein it has been specifically mentioned about the family partition and even the complainant has executed the sale deed, mentioning therein about the family partition. Hence the petitioners were entitled to sell their share of land in respect of family partition, hence, it is submitted by both the counsels that the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 17.08.2017 in connection

with Complaint case no. 1460 of 2016, in both the criminal miscellaneous petitions, be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Special PP, learned Addl PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 , on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 17.08.2017 in connection with Complaint case no. 1460 of 2016. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2 by drawing attention of the court to page 34 of the counter affidavit that petitioners in criminal Conspiracy with one another filed the forged rent receipt kept at page 34 of the counter affidavit, by inserting the khata no. 187 in the same, by way of forgery and used the rent receipt as genuine one before Sub Registrar to accept for Registration of the sale deed presented before him, and this has been done in criminal conspiracy with one another. It is next submitted that page no. 34 of the copy of the certified copy of the sale deed and its annexure which were obtained by the complainant from the office of the Sub-Registrar and from the same it is crystal clear that the same was produced before the Sub-Registrar by the petitioners. Drawing attention of the court to para 5 of the page no. 48 of the counter affidavit, which is the report, Submitted by the Circle Officer, Giridih to the Additional Collector, Giridih, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 that in the said report, It has categorically been mentioned that the rent receipt, which was annexed with the sale deed number 3973 dt. 22.09.2016, bears Khata No. 196 and 187 but in the Register-II at page 174, in the year, 2015-16, the rent receipt which has been issued, only Khata no. 196 has been mentioned and the seller of the sale deed has tampered with the said rent receipt and by the such tampering, has inserted Khata no. 187, hence, there is no illegality in the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, by which, learned Judicial Magistrate, has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 120B of IPC, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar, and after going through the materials in the records, this court is satisfied that from the copy of the certified copy of the said sale deed no. 3973 dated 22.09.2016 which was executed by the petitioners of Cr.M.P. no. 443 of 2018 in favour of the petitioners of the CrMP No. 464 of 2018, annexed with the copy of the forged rent receipt, in which, Khata no. 187 has been inserted by committing forgery and the report of the Circle Officer, confirms the forgery.

7. Under such circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Giridih finding the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 120B of IPC against the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petitions, being without any merit are dismissed and consequently, the interim order passed earlier, if any, in these cases, stands vacated.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 7th August, 2023 Smita /AFR