Jharkhand High Court
Salima Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. ...... Opp. ... on 6 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 05 of 2013
1.Salima Khatoon
2.Sagar Mansoori @ Mazhar Mansoori
3. Sunny Manssori @ Azhar Mansoori
...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ...... Opp. Parties
........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate
..............
04/Dated: 06/12/2023
This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.10.2012 in connection with
Complaint Case No. 480 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division)-III, Koderma.
2. Complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the
Accused no. 1 Salima Khatoon had registration of land by Sukar Yadav on
27/11/1984 vide registration no. 9542 for the Khata no. 41 Plot no, 100,
Mouza- Moriyama, P.S.no -2.
It was further alleged that the accused no.1 salima Khatoon had
taken advance token money for Rupees 70000/- for selling the land in favour to
the complainant in which they endorsed written on stamp paper in which
witnesses and identifier was accused no.2 Sagar Mansoori @ Manzoor Mansoori
and Sunny Mansooir both are son of Kamaluddin and belongs to same family.
Azhar.
It was further alleged that accused no.1 and 2 on 6/12/2010 had further
taken 45000/- in name of their mother illness since for the purchasing the land
complainant had to pay altogether 140000/- out 70000/- was given at earlier,
that the complainant had paid 45000/- as he had to pay further amount of Rs
70000/- in land dealing and the accused stated that they will take further
amount of Rs-25000/- after treatment of their mother and papers shall be
executed.
It was further alleged that complainant further alleged that since he
had to pay more of Rupees 70000/- for that reason he has given 45000/- on
6/12/2010.
It was further alleged that accused person refuse to their promise
of registration of land and threatened for implication in false case after some
assault.
It was further alleged that on 23/6/12 advocate notice sent to the
accused but neither they hand over the land by registration nor any meeting
was held in this respect.
It was further alleged that with conspiracy accused had taken away the
money in name of false agreement for selling of land for Rs. 115000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated. He submits that there was agreement between
the parties and allegations are made that amount has been taken by the
petitioners but the land has not been transferred and apart from that there is
no allegation against the petitioners. He relied in the case of "Dalip Kaur &
Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh and Anr." In Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2009
arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 431 of 2008. On these grounds he submits
that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that allegations are
there and further allegations are of threatening and using in filthy language.
5. The Court has gone through the contents of complaint petition as
well as Solemn Affirmation wherein it has been alleged that amount of Rs.
1,15,000/- was taken by the petitioners inspite of that land was not transferred.
Thus, it is crystal clear that intention of cheating was there from the very
beginning and in view of that Section 420 of I.P.C. is attracted. Further
allegations are there of threating and using filthy language.
6. If the case is civil in nature to continue the proceeding will amount
abuse of process of law but if the criminality is made out both criminal as well
as civil proceeding can go simultaneously as has been held by the in the case
of "Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Biological E. Ltd. (2000)
3 SCC 269. The case relied by "Dalip Kaur"(supra) the fact of that case is
otherwise. In that case execution of deed was the matter and thereafter
complaint was filed in view of that the said judgment has been passed. This
judgment is not helping the petitioner.
7. In view of above, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any,
stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
