Dharmawati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 940 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dharmawati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

       IN    THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M.P. No. 3418 of 2019
      1. Dharmawati Devi
      2. Jalendra Singh
      3. Babu Lal Sharma
      4. Hareshwar Prasad Singh
      5. Dhaneshwari Devi
      6. Ghanshyam Pandey
      7. Chandrasekhar Dubey
      8. Parvati Devi
      9. Prem Lata Devi
      10. Sita Vimal
      11. Saraswati @ Savitri Devi
      12. Awadh Kishor Prasad
      13. Parsuram Kumar Sharma
      14. Ajay Kumar
      15. Sangeeta Devi @ Sangeeta Rai         ..... ... Petitioners
                                  Versus
      1. State of Jharkhand.
      2. Ajit Kumar Mahatha                   ..... ...      Opposite Parties
                               --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate.

                               :        Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate.
      For the State            :        Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2       :        Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate.
                               ------
07/ 31.01.2024     Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2018, passed in C.P. Case No. 141 of 2017 as well as order dated 14.08.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.

3. The complaint case was filed on the written complaint dated 20.02.2017 of Ajit Kumar Mahatha against 32 others namely:

Dharmawati Devi and others alleging that he himself, Chandi Charan Mahatha, Smt. Rekha Devi, Smt. Malti Devi and Smt. Pramila Devi referred hereinafter as "land owners" jointly own land of Mouza Bandhgora, Mouza No. 35, Khata No. 28, Plot No. 15 measuring area 3 acres 80 decimals out of 45 acres 60 decimals. On 22.07.10 they entered into an agreement with accused No. 1 Chandradeep Kumar and Santu Sharma for selling 3 acres 80 2-

decimals land at the rate of Rs 11,000/- per decimal. Thereafter, they also executed General Power of Attorney bearing Registration No. 1088/127 dated 28.01.11 for selling 60 decimal land. After execution of General Power of Attorney bearing Registration No. 1088/127 dated 28.01.11, Chandradeep Kumar referred hereinafter as Accused No.1 on the basis of said G.P.A sold 60 decimals of land by executing sale deeds in favour Lacho Devi, Sukhvinder Singh, Sita Vimal, Rajesh Kumar, Nagendra Prasad, Usha Prasad, Shanti Devi, Kailash Choudhary, Ajay Kumar, Madan Pal and Daneshwari Devi. The complainant has further alleged that on the basis of same G.P.A bearing registration No. 1088/127 dated 28.12.11, he again sold 272 decimal land owned by "land owners"

in favour of Accused No. 2 to 32 by executing sale deeds at different point of time. The petitioners herein are part of that said group of subsequent purchasers who have been arrayed as Accused No. 2 to 32 in the complaint petition. The Complainant has further alleged that Accused No. 1 in connivance with accused No. 2 to 32 sold 272 decimals of land belonging to "land owners" without having any right using G.P.A. No. 1088/127 and fraudulently obtained Rs. 44,73,000/- and misappropriated the same.

4. Mr. Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against these petitioners, who happened to be the purchasers of the land in question. He submits that the accused No. 1 Chandradeep Kumar has sold the land to these petitioners on the basis of the power of attorney, executed by the complainant. He further submits that the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers and they have paid a substantial amount as consideration for purchasing the said land in question. He further submits that the allegations are made against Chandradeep Kumar that on the basis of the power of attorney, he has sold more of the land, as described in the power of attorney. He further submits that even the petitioner No. 6, after knowing the said things, he has filed an FIR against said Chadradeep Kumar, being Sector-XII P.S. Case No. 16 2016. He also submits that these petitioners have not interpolated

anything and what has been stated hereinabove on the basis of the power of attorney and they have purchased the land, as such, the case of cheating is not made out against the petitioners. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. Paras- 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

"18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows:

(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived

(i) to deliver any property to any person, or

(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).

20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint

is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.

21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.

22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code."

5. Relying on this judgment, he submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned, they have unnecessarily been called upon to face the trial. He further submits that if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and in view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

6. Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the case is made out and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. He submits that the petitioners have purchased the lands in question in connivance with Chadradeep Kumar and in view of that the case is made out against these petitioners. He further submits that Original Suit No. 31 of 2019 was filed for injunction against the petitioners and Chandradeep Kumar for restraining them to occupy the land. On

these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may not be quashed against the petitioners.

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that on the complaint case, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners.

8. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are the purchasers of the land in question and they have purchased the same through Chadradeep Kumar, who is the power of attorney holder of the land in question. The power of attorney provided by the complainant to the Chandradeep Kumar is not in dispute in view of that the power of attorney was valid one, however allegation is made that more land has been sold, as described in the said power of attorney. One of the petitioner, who is petitioner No. 6 has filed an FIR against said Chadradeep Kumar, being Sector-XII P.S. Case No. 16 of 2016 after knowing about the cheating made by him.

9. Thus, it is crystal clear that no interpolation or anything wrong was made by these petitioners and these petitioners are the purchasers of the land in question. If such a situation is there, the case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. (Supra). Further the Original Suit No. 31 of 2019 has already been filed by the complainant for injunction from entering into the lands in question purchased through the sale deeds, in which, the petitioners have also been made defendants in the said suit.

10. In view of the above, it appears that if any wrong is there, i.e. civil in nature and for that the complainant has taken the recourse of criminal proceedings. Further the main allegation is against Chandradeep Kumar, who has sold the land and these petitioners are only the purchasers of the lands in question.

11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2018, passed in C.P. Case No. 141 of 2017 as well as order dated 14.08.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Bokaro, are hereby, quashed so far as these petitioners are concerned.

12. There are allegations against Chandradeep Kumar and he is not the petitioner herein in view of this, this court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance against Chadradeep Kumar is concerned.

13. It is further clarified that the pending suit before the learned court shall proceed in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order, as this order has been passed considering the parameters of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and criminality aspect of the matter.

14. With the above observations, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-