Uma Chatterjee vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2212 Jhar

                                   1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      Cr.M.P. No. 3569 of 2013

    Uma Chatterjee                       .....    ....   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
    1.The State of Jharkhand
    2. Kishan Yadav                             ..............Opposite Parties

     CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                               ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate

C.A.V. on 12.06.2023 Pronounced on: 21/06/2023

1. Heard Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar,

learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated

21.05.2011 passed in connection with C/1 Case No. 3334 of 2010,

pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint petition was filed alleging therein that on

15.07.1998 accused No. 3, Tushar Nayak came to the complainant

and gave him a proposal for purchasing a house premises situated

at Tank road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. Complainant agreed with that

proposal and thereafter accused no. 3 brought accused no. 1 & 2 to

the complainant and the accused persons induced the complainant

stating that accused no. 1 is co-owner with respect to the house

premises, bearing holding no. 77A, measuring an area about 30' x

60' situated at Tank Road, Sakchi, also saying that accused no. 1 &

2 were in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same.

It was alleged that accused no. 1 had filed a partition suit

bearing Title (Partition) Suit No. 2/98 against the other co-owners of

the said house premises. The accused no. 1 has been in peaceful

possession of the Southern half portion measuring an area 15' x 60'

and was legally entitled for the said half portion. The accused

person stated that accused no. 1 was in urgent need of money for

taking proper steps in the Title (Partition) Suit No. 2/98 as such she

had decided to sale the said southern half portion of the said house

premises or any portion of the said premises which might come in

her share by way of decree in the said Title suit. Thereafter the

complainant believing the said dishonest inducement agreed to

purchase the said half portion of the house premises for a

consideration amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- only with a condition that

the sale value would be revised or re-assessed in future as per her

share, and accordingly on 19.07.1998 an agreement was executed

between the complainant and accused no. 1 and as an advance of

Rs. 20,000/- was paid. It is further alleged that as per agreement

for sale Rs. 7,52,000/- was paid to the accused no. 1 on different

dates but when accused no. 1 got her half share in the said house

premises through a decree passed in said partition suit and when

the complainant approached her to execute a sale deed in favour of

the complainant as per terms and conditions of the said agreement,

the accused no. 1 avoided to execute sale deed. Finally on

09.10.2010 the accused persons flatly refused to execute sale deed

in favour of the complainant and they also were not ready to return

the amount advanced to them, with market rate interest. The

accused with dishonest intention conspired together to cheat the

complainant and misappropriate the amount for which they were

liable to be prosecuted.

4. Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is innocent and she has committed no offence

and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the

entire story is concocted one with malafide intention to harass the

petitioner who is widower and aged about 85 years now. He

submitted that the petitioner was going under litigation in respect

to partition to her ancestral properties with her agnates vide

Partition Suit No. 2/1998 which is an admitted fact between the

parties. He further submitted that on the basis of agreement for

sale executed between the complainant and the petitioner on

20.07.1998 the complaint case was filed. He further submitted that

subsequently certain further development has taken place which has

not been disclosed in the complaint. He submitted that the

complaint case was filed on the basis of agreement of sale dated

20.07.1998 however, in order taking cognizance the learned court

has given reference to another agreement for sale dated

20.04.2001. He submitted that in the second agreement it has come

that the complainant had given entire consideration sale value of

the schedule B property i.e. house premises falling in share of the

petitioner. The manner of payment with regard to sale is also

disputed. He submitted that the petitioner has executed a power of

attorney in favour of complainant on 20.04.2001 in respect to

aforesaid house property situated at Sakchi Tank road measuring

area 50' x 60' and the complainant was given right to execute any

lease, sale or contract in respect to the aforesaid property on behalf

of the petitioner and this power of attorney is itself indicative of this

fact that no agreement for sale or any such agreement was in

existence at that time between the petitioner and O.P. No.2. He

submitted that in connivance with one Bishwajeet Mukherjee, the

complainant has unnecessarily filed the present case against the

petitioner. He submitted that the complainant being induced by the

aforesaid Bishwajeet Mukherjee had offered his help to the

petitioner and both in connivance with each other hatched

conspiracy to debar the petitioner from her ancestral property who

is an aged lady. He further submitted that sale deed was executed

by the petitioner in favour of Smt. Falguni Mukherjee wife of

Bishwajeet Mukherjee on 15.03.2008 after taking consideration

amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and rest consideration amount of Rs.

8,00,000/- is still remaining with purchaser Smt. Falguni Mukherjee.

In that sale deed the complainant is a witness and he as well as

Bishwajeet Mukherjee had undertaken time and again to pay

consideration amount as consideration amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-

but the same was not paid by them for which the petitioner has also

filed a case being Kadma P.S. Case No. 11 of 2013. In these

backgrounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for

the property in question, a partition suit is pending and the

petitioner has been cheated with connivance of the complainant

and Bishwajeet Mukherjee and Smt. Falguni Mukherjee and to

allow the proceeding to continue will amount to harass the

petitioner. He submitted that if any case is made out that is civil in

nature and no criminality is made out.

5. On the other hand Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, learned

counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that in view of agreement

dated 20.04.2001 it is evident from the terms and conditions that

the second party has invested huge amount for the same and that

is why the second party has paid entire consideration amount of

schedule B property and amount has been subsequently sent to the

petitioner. He submitted that the complainant has financially helped

the petitioner as per her demand. He submitted that the petitioner

has filed the Title (Partition) Suit No. 2 of 1998 which was

decreed on 06.10.2007 and the petitioner got her share

accordingly, and as such there is nothing in dispute and nothing

was pre-planned and the petitioner is not helpless lady and her

son Hritik Chatterjee is also an educated person. He submitted that

the case of criminality is made out and at this stage this Court may

not interfere with proceeding under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for

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

the contents of complaint case as well as order taking cognizance.

It appears that for the property in question the complaint case has

been filed. There are agreements between the petitioner and the

complainant and subsequently by another agreement subsequent

property in question was sold to Smt Falguni Mukherjee wife of

Bishwajeet Mukherjee and the said Bishwajeet Mukherjee has

connived with the complainant and the petitioner has been made a

scapegoat for the property in question. Admittedly, she has filed the

partition suit which has been decreed on 06.10.2007. Further in the

sale deed in favour of Smt Falguni Mukherjee by the petitioner, this

complainant has signed the sale deed as one of the witness on the

sale deed executed by the petitioner and the petitioner has not

received the entire consideration amount and if such a situation is

there on the basis of agreement the said complaint case has been

filed. The fact shows if dispute is there the same is civil in nature.

Moreover the sale deed was executed in the year, 2008 wherein the

present complaint case has been filed in the year, 2010 after lapse

of 2 years. There is no explanation of delay in filing the present

complaint case.

7. In view of above facts, even if the allegation made in

the complaint are accepted to be true and correct the petitioner

cannot be said to be committed an offence of cheating and criminal

breach of trust. From the very beginning there is no intention of the

petitioner to deceive the complainant particularly considering the

fact that in the sale deed the complainant has signed on the sale

deed as one of the witness. Parameters of section 482 of Cr.P.C.

have been discussed time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in different judgments which was again considered in the case of "

V.P. Shrivastava V. Indian Explosives Limited and Others."

(2010) 10 SCC 361 wherein para 15 and 16 the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:-

"15. Before evaluating the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it will be useful to briefly notice the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The section itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely; (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends or justice. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustice.

16. In one of the earlier cases in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab2 this Court had summarised some of the categories of cases where the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code could be exercised by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings against the accused. These are: (AIR p. 869, para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (III) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is

no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

8. Further, the case of the petitioner is also fortified in

view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

"Md. Ibrahim & Others. Vs. State of Bihar & Another"

(2009) 8 SCC 751.

9. The petitioner is an old aged lady and it is

abundantally clear that transaction complained of was purely of civil

in nature and at best it could be said to be a case of breach of

contract.

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

criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated

21.05.2011 passed in connection with C/1 Case No. 3334 of 2010,

pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Jamshedpur, is quashed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

Interim order is vacated.

11. It is made clear that so far as if any civil suit present

or any civil litigation is there that can be decided in accordance with

law without prejudice to this judgment.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 21st of June, 2023 Satyarthi/-N.A.F.R.