Jharkhand High Court

Rukmakesh Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another on 12 September, 2023

                                 1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                        ----

Cr.M.P. No. 782 of 2014

----

Rukmakesh Mishra                              .... Petitioner
                         --   Versus     --
The State of Jharkhand and Another            .... Opposite Parties
                               With
                     Cr.M.P. No. 148 of 2014
                                 ----
Sanjeev Verma                                 .... Petitioner
                         --   Versus     --
The State of Jharkhand and Another            .... Opposite Parties
                               With
                    Cr.M.P. No. 182 of 2014
                                 ----
Madan Gopal Singh                             .... Petitioner
                          --  Versus --

The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 234 of 2014

----

Rajiv David                                   .... Petitioner
                          --   Versus --

The State of Jharkhand, through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 278 of 2014

----

Madan Gopal Singh                           .... Petitioner
                          --  Versus --

The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 350 of 2014

----

Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar                       .... Petitioner
                          --  Versus --

The State of Jharkhand through Officer in charge, P.S. Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 412 of 2014

----

Rajiv David                                   .... Petitioner
                          --  Versus --

The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 521 of 2014

----

Binod Kumar                                   .... Petitioner
                           --   Versus   --
The State of Jharkhand                        .... Opposite Party
                                 With



                       Cr.M.P. No. 706 of 2014
                                  ----
 Sanjay Kumar                                      .... Petitioner
                            --   Versus     --
 The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
                                  With
                       Cr.M.P. No. 827 of 2014
                                  ----
 Jagdish Prasad Das                          .... Petitioner
                           --  Versus --

The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 1224 of 2014

----

 Pradip Prasana Kessop                             .... Petitioner
                            --   Versus     --
 The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
                                  With
                       Cr.M.P. No. 685 of 2021
                               ----
 Neeraj Verma @ Neeraj Kumar Verma                 .... Petitioner
                         --   Versus        --
 The State of Jharkhand                            .... Opposite Party
                               ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior counsel [Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021]

Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior counsel [Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014]

Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014]

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014]

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 & Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014]

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014]

For the Respondent State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P [Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014]

Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P., [Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014 & Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014]

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

[Cr.M.P. Nos.350 of 2014, 706 of 2014 & 827 of 2014]

Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan A.P.P.

[Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014]

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P [Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014]

Mr. Fahad Allam A.P.P.

[Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014]

----

16/12.09.2023 Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021, Mr. A.K. Kashyap,

the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in

Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014,

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned

counsel along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned assisting-counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P.

No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P.

No.827 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.706 of

2014. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1224 of

2014; Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl.P.P appearing on behalf of

the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014, Mr. V.S. Sahay, the

learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P.

No.148 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha,

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in

Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No. 827 of

2014, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of

the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014, Mr. Pankaj Kumar

Mishra, the learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondent State in

Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014 and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned A.P.P. appearing

on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014.

2. In all these petitions, a common question of facts and law

as well as the F.I.R and the order taking cognizance are under challenge

and that is why all these petitions have been heard together with consent

of the parties.

3. In all these petitions, the prayer is made for quashing of the

Koderma P.S. Case No.11 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.44 of 2014,

registered for the offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 466, 474,

477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 82(D) of the

Registration Act against the petitioners. The order taking cognizance

dated 02.01.2021 is under challenge in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 so far as

the petitioner namely Neeraj Verma @ Neeraj Kr. Verma is concerned.

The cognizance order is also under challenge in Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014

and Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014.

4. The First Information Report (FIR) is registered alleging

therein that the prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of

written statement of the informant namely Jitendra Kumar Deo, Land

Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma stating therein that on 12.08.2013

sanction for the Registration of Sale of the land appertaining to Khata No.

01, Plot nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 total area 427 acres situated

at Village Taral, within Domchanch Anchal (Thana no. 10) has been given

by Sri Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar, Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Koderma

vide Eleven Sale Deeds bearing nos. 4237, 4238, 4239, 4240, 4241,

4242, 4243, 4244, 4245, 4246 and 4247 all dated 12.08.2013.

It is alleged in the FIR that there is no plot over and above Plot no.

10 at Village - Terai within Domchanch Prakhand (Thana no. 10) and

therefore. Plot no. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 are baseless and

imaginary plots and therefore, no registration can be made for the

aforesaid imaginary lands of the aforesaid plots and therefore the

registration is false and forged.

It is further alleged in the FIR that identity card given by all the

venders are fake and forged and the documents have been prepared with

the help of forged identity card.

It is further alleged in the FIR that false identification cards have

been submitted by the identifiers of the sellers of the land and therefore,

all of them are guilty for impersonation.

It is further alleged in the FIR that the affidavits filed by the

purchaser, namely, the representative of Sri Rajeev David, Tata Steel Ltd.

Company and the sellers are false and fabricated.

It is further alleged in the FIR that the stamp duty and

registration cost amounting to Rs.1.34 Crore has been deposited after

withdrawing the same from Government treasury.

It is further alleged in the FIR that in the circumstances stated

above, in connivance with all the staff of the Registry Office, all the

persons involved in connection with the execution of the alleged

registered Sale Deed, vendors and vendees, identifiers and witnesses

whose names are mentioned in the written report the aforesaid

registration have been completed.

It is further alleged in the FIR that the main intention behind the

execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed is only to grab the consideration

amount amounting to Rs. 4,78,22,700.00/-. Therefore, it has been

requested by the Informant to institute an F.I.R. against the erring

persons and to do necessary action against them.

5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 submits that the

petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He further submits that what are the

materials against the petitioner has not been disclosed in the order

taking cognizance and inspite of that, the learned court has been pleased

to take cognizance. He submits that if reason is not there and order

taking cognizance is cryptic one, the said order is not sustainable in the

eye of law and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of

Amresh Kumar Dhiraj v. State of Jharkhand and Another reported

in 2020 (1) JLJR 199.

6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014 submits that the

petitioner was posted as Computer Operator in the Office of the District

Sub-Registrar at Koderma. He submits that the duty of the petitioner was

to enter the registered document after completion of the registration. He

further submits that the learned Court without giving any cogent reasons

has been pleased to take cognizance and there is no allegation against

the petitioner of any conspiracy and the case of the petitioner is fully

covered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered

in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar

and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. He submits that Section

82 of the Registration Act is of the year 1908 and the procedures are

prescribed therein and if the special provision is there, the I.P.C section is

not attracted. On these grounds, he submits that the proceeding may

kindly be quashed.

7. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014 submits that the

petitioner was posted as District Sub-Registrar, Koderma. He submits that

the concerned D.F.O by way of Annexure-4 has given consent for sale of

the land. He further submits that in view of Annexure-5 the Circle

Officer's report is there who has disclosed about the nature of the land.

By way of referring Annexure-1 of the petition, he submits that in view of

the said document which is issued by the Government of Jharkhand, the

enquiry by the registering authority is not required. He submits that the

case of the petitioner is covered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others

(supra). He further submits that section 71 and 72 of the Registration

Act speaks of reasons for refusal to register to be recorded and there is

provision of appeal under section 72 of the Registration Act. He submits

that no case against the petitioner is made out.

8. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014 submits that the

petitioner was the Deed Writer and no role is described. By way of

referring Annexure-2 series, he submits that the documents were

provided by the vendor and the vendee and on the basis of that he has

only drafted the deed and apart from that, there is no allegation against

the petitioner and the proceeding is bad in law.

9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing along with

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned assisting counsel on behalf of the

petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P.

No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and

Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014 submits that the petitioner(s) are the officers of

M/s Tata Steel Limited. He further submits that at page no.37 at sl.no.7

the name of the petitioners have been disclosed in the F.I.R. He submits

that M/s Tata Steel Limited has entered in the Facilitation Agreement by

way of Annexure-3 and 4 for purchasing the land with M/s Mascott Real

Estate Private Limited. He submits that legal opinion was obtained with

regard to the land in question and non-encumbrance certificate was

provided and Tata Steel Limited has also issued Public Notice and in

Annexure-8 the Circle Officer has certified about the land in question. He

submits that Final Form has been submitted and petitioner namely,

Madan Gopal Singh has been exonerated who has signed the deed on

behalf of Tata Steel Limited. However, the learned court has taken

cognizance against him also without giving any reason. He submits that

so far as the petitioner namely Jagdish Prasad Das is concerned, he is

not named in the F.I.R, however, the learned court has taken cognizance.

He submits that petitioner Madan Gopal Singh has not been sent up for

trial, however, the learned court has taken cognizance against him also.

He submits that the company is not made an accused. He further

submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the

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

Ibrahim and Others (supra) and the recent judgment rendered in the

case of Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626. He submits that all these petitioners

are the officers of the company-Tata Steel Limited and they have not the

benefitted persons. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel submits that in

Cr.M.P. No.728 of 2014, the petitioner is the Block Development Officer.

He submits that the petitioner in this petition has been implicated only on

the ground that being the Incharge of the Circle Officer, he has issued

the certificate.

10. Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.706 of 2014 has adopted the argument of

Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner in Cr.M.P No.148 of 2014 as the petitioner of that case is also

the Deed Writer.

11. In the above background, all the learned counsels

appearing on behalf of the petitioners jointly submit that the entire

criminal proceeding is bad in law and the order taking cognizance is not

in accordance with law.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing on

behalf of the respondent State opposed the prayer made by the learned

counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and submit that the F.I.R

was lodged on the basis of the written report which is contained in Memo

No.14 dated 09.01.2014 given by the O.P.No.2.

13. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent State in Cr.M.P.No.521 of 2014 submits that in the name of

Tata Steel Limited eleven sale deeds have been executed through the

agents of the land situated over Mouja: Tarai, Block Domchanch, Khata

No.1, Plot numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19, having total area of

427 acres, which has been approved by the Assistant Registrar, Koderma

for its registration. She further submits that the registration of sale deeds

are forged as because the Mauja-Tarai there is no plot number the plot

nos. 10, 11 to 16 and 19 are not in existence and it is the imaginary

lands. She submits that eleven sellers have submitted their identity

letters which are also forged and fabricated and all the sellers have used

the identity letters of different persons and the Assistant Registrar,

Koderma permitted the registration believing them to be true. The

identifier has also submitted the wrong identity letters. An amount of

Rs.1.3 crore has been deposited in the Government Treasure with regard

to the stamp duty and registration fees. She submits that all the persons

and the officials of the Department of Registration in connivance with

other persons have given to such forgery and the amount which has

been received by the Government through the stamp duties and the

registration fees are illegal. She submits that in this background, at this

stage, this Court may not interfere in these matters and all the

arguments are the subject matter of trial. She submits that there are

allegations against all the petitioners and in view of that, this Court may

not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction at this stage.

14. Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent State in Cr.M.P.No.148 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014

submits that so far the petitioner Madan Gopal Singh is concerned, he

has not been sent up for trial, however, the learned court has taken

cognizance in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014. He submits that, however, there

are allegations against the petitioner and the case is made out.

15. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014 submits that

there are direct allegations against this petitioner and in view of that, the

case of interference is not made out.

16. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsels

appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the

contents of the F.I.R as well as the order taking cognizance which has

been brought on record.

17. In Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014, the charge-sheet has also been

brought on record by way of filing I.A. No.3692 of 2023.

18. Looking into the averments and the contents of the F.I.R, it

appears that there are allegations of registration of plots which are not in

existence and there are allegations against the petitioners to act on

different capacity as some are officers of Tata Steel Limited and District

Sub-Registrar, Koderma, Block Development Officer (BDO) who was In-

charge of the Circle Officer and the deed writers. However, the learned

court has taken cognizance against the petitioners even who are not

named in the F.I.R and there are two petitioners who are not named in

the F.I.R in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 and Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and in

Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, the petitioner was not sent up for trial and

inspite of that, the learned court has taken cognizance against the

petitioner namely, Madan Gopal Singh. There is no doubt that the learned

court can take a decision even against a person who is not sent up for

trial, but if such a situation is there, at least, the prima facie materials of

differing with the charge sheet, is required to be disclosed in the order

taking cognizance which is lacking in the case in hand. In view of these

facts, the Court finds that the learned court has taken cognizance against

atleast one of the accused person who has signed the deed on behalf of

Tata Steel Limited who was not sent up for trial and two of the accused

persons were not named in the F.I.R. If there is no such indication in the

case of application of mind where the learned Magistrate proceeds under

section 190 and 204 of the Cr.P.C, under section 482 Cr.P.C. the High

Court can exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of powers of the

criminal court. In summoning the accused, the application of mind must

be there. The said order must be on the satisfaction and it was the duty

of the court as it is not the post office to pass an order in a routine

manner. A reference may be made to the case of Birla Corporation

Limited v. Advent Investment and Holdings Limited and Others,

reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610 wherein at paragraph nos.33, 34 and

35 it has been held as under:

"33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to the accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 430, para 22) "22. ... The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-

respect and image in society. Hence, the process of

criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment."

(emphasis supplied)

34. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para 28, it was held as under: (SCC p. 760) "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

The principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of course, the criminal case against a person cannot be set into motion was reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd.

35. To be summoned/to appear before the criminal court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment."

19. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also

taken note of the case of 'Pepsi Foods Limited' at paragraph no.34.

20. Section 190 and 200 to 204 of the Cr.P.C. are required to be

carefully examined before issuing the summoning order against any

accused and criminal liability can be imputed to the company based on

the principles of alter ego and reverse the application on principle is not

permissible. A reference may be made to the case of Sunil Bharti

Mittal v. C.B.I. reported in (2014) 4 SCC 609 wherein it has been

held that the application of mind is necessary and satisfaction about the

allegation if proved to constitute an offence. Paragraph no.48 of the said

judgment is quoted below:

"48. Sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not."

21. There is no doubt that there are parameters of quashing of

the F.I.R and if there are allegations against the petitioners, the High

Court is not required to roam into and come to the conclusion that no

case is made out against the petitioners and that can be only a subject

matter of trial. In the case in hand, the charge sheet has already been

submitted and thereafter the learned court has been pleased to take

congnizance. In a case where the charge sheet has been submitted, the

learned court task of taking cognizance comes to a much easier as the

entire facts are before the court to examine whether the case to further

proceed is made out or not. However, in a complaint case where the

witnesses of the complaint case examined by the learned court, the

learned court is further put with a greater task to find out the prima facie