Jharkhand High Court
Ram Chander Mahto @ Ram Chandra Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 16 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3423 of 2019
----
Ram Chander Mahto @ Ram Chandra Mahto .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
----
7/16.02.2024 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the respondent
State as well as the O.P.No.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
29.05.2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that O.P.No.2
entered into an agreement with petitioner for purchase of a piece of land
measuring 5 decimals appertaining to plot no.938 in khata no.72 in
mouza-Chandghashi but the same could not be materialized. The
petitioner executed sale deed dated 28.12.2004 by accepting
consideration amount for an area of 10 decimals. At the time of erecting
boundary wall, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the petitioner. After
execution of sale deed, the O.P.No.2 took steps for mutation and paid
rent. On 17.07.2015 he received information about sale deed executed in
favour of Sushila Devi on 23.2.2011. In spite of several attempts, dispute
could not be resolved by the petitioner and he refused to resolve same.
4. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that allegation is made that the land was sold to the petitioner in the
year 2004. He submits that further it has been alleged that in the year
2015 the petitioner has sold further to Sushila Devi. He submits in view
of that, the sale deed was also executed in favour of the O.P.No.2 and no
case is made out. He further submits that if the sale was made to Sushila
Devi later on in the year 2015 with regard to another area of same plot
and in view of that, he submits that this is a civil dispute and entire
criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. He relied in the case of
Usha Chakraborty and Another v. State of West Bengal and
Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67.
5. Mr. Rishu Ranjan, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2
submits that this is not a case belatedly the present case is lodged. He
submits that in the year 2004 sale deed was made in favour of O.P.No.2
by the petitioner and same land was further sold to another Sushila Devi
in the year 2015. He submits that in view of that it is the case made out
against the petitioner as intention of cheating from very beginning is
there.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits the
learned court has rightly taken cognizance.
7. In the complaint the allegations are made that in the year
2015 the petitioner has sold same land to another Sushila Devi and the
sale deed was made in favour of the petitioner. Once the said land is sold
to the O.P.No.2, there was no occasion to transfer the same to another
person in 2015 and in view of that intention to cheat from the very
beginning prima facie has been made out. In the case relied by Mr.
Sahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact is otherwise. In
that case even civil suit was pending and the same was suppressed in
the complaint case and suppressing the same the complaint case was
filed and in that view of the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come
to the conclusion that for the civil dispute, the criminal case was filed and
in the present case, the facts are otherwise and as such, that judgment
is not helping the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No. 3423 of 2019 is dismissed.
9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
