Jharkhand High Court

Madan Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 30 January, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                          1


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

Cr.M.P. No. 2276 of 2016

----

1.Madan Prasad

2.Smt. Chandramukhi Devi .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---


          For the Petitioners      :-      Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
          For the State            :-      Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate
          For the O.P.No.2         :-      Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
                                           ----


2/30.01.2024           Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.19 of 2016, G.R.

No.115 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.02.2018,

pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh.

3. During the pendency of the present case the charge sheet

has been submitted and the learned court has taken cognizance and by way

of I.A. No.4929 of 2020, the order taking cognizance and the charge sheet

has been challenged.

4. Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submits that during pendency of this matter subsequently the

charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken which

necessitated to file the said I.A. which may be allowed.

5. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the

O.P.No.2 and submits that at this stage this I.A may not be allowed.

6. Considering that earlier interim protection was there in

favour of the petitioner and the matter is still pending and also to avoid

multiplicity of litigation, the prayer made in the instant I.A is allowed, and

consequently, the instant I.A be treated as part of the present petition.

7. In view of allowing the I.A. the order taking cognizance is

also under challenge.

8. The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein

that the petitioners are the relatives of Opposite Party No.2 being Samadhi

and Samadhin respectively. The Opposite Party No.2 was an employee of the

Thermal Power Station from where he retired in October, 2012. It is stated

that in March, 2013, petitioner No.1 approached the Opposite Party No.2 and

informed him that the accused No.3 Asha Devi is interested to sell a piece of

land admeasuring 8.66 decimals situated over R.S. Plot No.3340, Sub Plot

No.3340/04 under Khata No.500, Khewat No.19/6, Thana No.79, Mouza

Ratu, P.S.Ratu, District-Ranchi and produced copies of the documents

relating to the land. The petitioner is also alleged to have assured the

Opposite Party No.2 that the land is free from all disputes. The Opposite

Party No.2 agreed to purchase the said land and after negotiation, the

Opposite Party No.2 purchased the said land for a consideration of Rs.19.00

Lakhs The Opposite Party No.2 had given the consideration amount to the

accused Nos.3 and 4 on various dates and accordingly money receipts were

issued. Ultimately on 22.04.2013, a sale deed was executed by accused no.3

in favour of the Opposite Party No.2. After execution of the sale deeds, the

Opposite Party No.2 applied for mutation but the Circle Officer refused to

allow the mutation application on the ground that under the provisions of

Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, a Non-tribal land cannot be sold or

purchased. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons have entered into a

criminal conspiracy and cheated the Opposite Party No.2 and it has been

alleged that though Rs.19.00 Lakhs have been given as consideration, but, in

the sale deed, only Rs.8.60 Lakhs have been mentioned. It is further alleged

that the Opposite Party No.2 requested for refund of the amount of Rs.19.00

Lakhs but the petitioner No.1 agreed to refund the amount and had entered

into an agreement for sale on 21.03.2015 and also returned Rs.2.00 Lakhs

through cheque No.362361, however, he failed to refund the remaining

amount. He had also issued a cheque of Rs.5.00 Lakhs which was

dishonoured. On 08.11.2015, a Panchayeti was held and the accused persons

were present and the accused No.1 and 4 abused the complainant and

caught him by neck and pulled him on the ground and threatened of dire

consequences.

9. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the complaint case was sent by the learned court under section 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C and pursuant to that, Patratu P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 was registered.

The police has submitted the charge sheet and the learned court has taken

cognizance. He submits that the O.P.No.2 has approached the petitioners

with an offer to sell the 8.66 decimals of land situated over R.S. Plot

No.3340, Sub Plot no.3340/04 under Khata No.500, Khewat no.19/6, Thana

No.79, Mouza Ratu, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi stating that he has purchased

the same by way of sale deed dated 22.04.2013 from Asha Devi, wife of

Bharat Bhushan. He submits that on relying on O.P.No.2 the petitioners

agreed to purchase the said land and for which agreement has been

executed on 20.01.2015 and pursuant to that the petitioners have paid Rs.2

lacs by cheque no.362361 dated 10.04.2015. He submits that mutation of

the said land on behalf of the O.P.No.2 was already rejected. In view of that,

petitioners have approached the O.P.No.2 for cancellation of agreement and

for returning of the amount of Rs.2 lacs and also the cheque of Rs.5 lacs

which was given by the petitioners. Subsequently, the banker was adviced

not to release the said cheque in favour of the O.P.No.2. He submits that

only to grab the money of the petitioners a false case has been lodged

against the petitioners by the O.P.No.2. He submits that if the case is made

out, that is civil in nature and for that the criminal case has been filed. On

these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be

quashed.

10. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the case is

made out and in view of that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

He submits that on the assurance of the petitioners, he has purchased the

land in question through one Asha Devi and in view of that, the case against

these petitioners is made out. He submits that this Court may not quash the

entire proceeding at this stage.

11. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent

State submits that the learned court looking into the chare sheet has been

pleased to take cognizance.

12. It is an admitted position that the land being R.S. Plot

No.3340, Sub Plot no.3340/04 under Khata No.500, Khewat no.19/6, Thana

No.79, Mouza Ratu, P.S. Ratu was purchased by the O.P.No.2 from one Asha

Devi by registered deed and that is the part of the F.I.R which is on record.

The agreement between the petitioners and the O.P.No.2 are also on the

record which clearly suggest that the O.P.No.2 was inclined to sell the land in

question to the petitioners. The petitioners have paid Rs.2 lacs to the

O.P.No.2 and cheque was also issued. It has come to the knowledge of the

petitioners that the land was not mutated in the name of the O.P.No.2 and

they have cancelled the said agreement and advised the banker not to

release the amount of the said cheque. Further these petitioners are neither

the seller nor the witnesses in the sale deed dated 22.4.2013 and in view of

that background it is crystal clear that if there is any dispute, that is civil in

nature and that was given criminal colour by way of filing the present case.

Further, every contract cannot be the subject matter of criminal proceeding

as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vijay

Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., (2022) 7 SCC 124. Paragraph

nos.37 and 38 of the said judgment is quoted below:

"37. The following observation made by this Court in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar [Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 49] with almost similar facts and circumstances may be relevant to note at this stage : (SCC pp. 338-39, paras 6-7) "6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of the complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120-BIPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. ... It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the consumer forum in relation to the claim of Rs 4,20,000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case, it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception that there was intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420IPC.

7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-BIPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC which it has erroneously refused."

38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand,

complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants."

13. In view of above, to allow the present proceeding to

continue further will amount to abuse of process of law, and accordingly,

entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No.19 of

2016, G.R. No.115 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated

15.02.2018, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Ramgarh, so far as petitioners are concerned, are quashed.

14. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.

15. It is made clear that the Court has not interfered with the

order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding so far as other

accused persons are concerned and the Court will proceed in accordance

with the law.