Ranjeet Narayan Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3036 Jhar

                                                      1                Cr.M.P. No. 2215 of 2015


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 2215 of 2015
            1.   Ranjeet Narayan Mishra
            2.   Lalit Kumar Jha                               ... Petitioners
                                       -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Sourav Bhattacharya                           ... Opposite Parties
                                              -----

            CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                              -----
            For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
            For the State       : None
            For O.P. No.2       : Ms. Sonali Bhattacharjee, A.C. to Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Adv.
                                              -----

05/21.08.2023     Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Ms. Sonali Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Nobody

appears on behalf of the State.

2. I.A. No.7306 of 2023 has been filed for amendment in the prayer

portion of this Cr.M.P. as during the pendency of this petition, summons

have been issued against the petitioners vide order dated 08.03.2022,

contained in Annexure-4 of the said I.A.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer made in

the said I.A. and submits that at belated stage, this may not be allowed.

4. The Court finds that the case was filed in the year 2015 and interim

protection was provided to the petitioners vide order dated 19.01.2016 and

vide order dated 08.03.2022, summons have been issued against the

petitioners.

5. In view of the above facts and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation,

the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7306 of 2023 is disposed of.

7. Let I.A. No.7306 of 2023 be treated as part of Cr.M.P. No.2215

of 2015.

8. In the present case, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire

criminal prosecution being Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No.285/15 (G.R.

827/15) registered under Section 406/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian

Penal Code arising out of PCR Case No.189/15, pending in the court of the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela. The order dated 08.03.2022 is

also under challenge.

9. The informant has lodged the case alleging therein that he is

experienced in branding and advertising and in course of business, he came

in contact with the petitioners who are builders. Petitioner no.1 is Director

of Shashank Nidhi Construction and he entrusted the work of branding and

advertisement to the informant. It is stated that the informant is rendering

his service to the petitioners since 2007. The informant used to get his

remuneration from the petitioners but very meager amount was paid. It is

also stated that lastly Rs.6,30,000/- fallen due for payment and the

informant used to make demand for payment of amount from the

petitioners. The assurance was given to the informant by the petitioners. It

is further alleged that petitioner no.2 came to the informant and negotiated

that in lieu of his due service, petitioner no.1 is ready to give him the land.

Thereafter, petitioner no.1 assured the informant to transfer a piece of land

in his favour. It is also alleged that vide sale deed dated 27.11.2009 and

23.07.2012 respectively, petitioner no.1 transferred 2 different piece of land

in favour of the informant on payment of full consideration amount and he

has been put on possession of the said lands. Petitioner no.1 entered into

an agreement with the informant for allotment of the flat on various terms

and conditions vide agreement dated 06.02.2006 in the project namely

Platina Dream City for Rs.4,62,000. It is further alleged that the informant

paid total Rs.1,21,000/- and receipts were duly executed and given to the

informant. The petitioners requested the informant to refund the receipts

and the informant returned them. It is also alleged that the petitioners are

not allowing the informant to enjoy the property purchased by him. The

petitioners promised to return the cheques, but they did not did so rather

they have illegally misused the amount paid by the informant for the

purpose of the allotment of flat though there has been no further

development in the matter of allotment of flat in Platina Dream City. It is

alleged that the petitioners are giving false threats to dispossess from the

purchased land.

10. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioner no.1 is a developer and opposite party no.2 has approached the

petitioners to purchase a flat in one of the project namely Platina Dream

City and entered into an agreement on 06.02.2006 and paid Rs.1,21,000/-

vide two cheques. He further submits that in the complaint petition, there is

admission of transferring the land in favour of the informant and mutation

was also done in favour of opposite party no.2 and in spite of that the

present case has been filed. He submits that if any dispute is there, remedy

is also there and for that criminal case under Section 406/420/467/468/

471/120B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

11. Ms. Sonali Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for opposite

party no.2 submits that there are allegations of not developing the land in

question and from very beginning the intention was there and that is why

the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

12. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the complaint case,

which was sent by the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for

registration of the present FIR and finds that there is admission in the

complaint itself that the land in question was transferred in favour of

opposite party no.2 and the said land was also mutated. If any promise is

not fulfilled and if there is any breach of contract, criminal case cannot be

made out. Further, there is no allegation in the entire complaint case that

from very beginning the intention of cheating was there, which is necessary

in view of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. A reference may be made

to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil

Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and others; [(2006) 6 SCC 736].

13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

prosecution being Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No.285/15 (G.R. 827/15)

arising out of PCR Case No.189/15 including the order dated 08.03.2022,

pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela are

quashed.

14. It is made clear that if any proceeding with regard to civil case is

there, that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudiced to this

order.

15. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

16. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/