M/S Jharkhand Agro Farms vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5513 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Jharkhand Agro Farms vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

       IN      THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 2535 of 2016
       1. M/s Jharkhand Agro Farms, a partnership firm,
          through one of its partners Sri Sanjiv Kapila
       2. Sanjiv Kapila
       3. Rajiv Singh Dugal                            .....   ...   Petitioners
                                    Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand.
       2. Mahesh Prasad                                .....   ...   Opposite Parties
                                         with
                             Cr.M.P. No. 1013 of 2016
      1. Hi-Tech Heritage Limited,
         represented by Mr. Aditya Narayan Mahato
      2. Aditya Narayan Mahato                        .....   ... Petitioners
                                   Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Sri Mahesh Prasad                            ..... ...       Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate.

                                :        Ms Sidhi Jalan, Advocate.
                                :        Mr. Deepankar, Advocate.
      For the State             :        Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
                                :        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Ritesh Verma, A.C. to
                                         Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate.
                                                            [in both cases]
                                ------
05/ 10.06.2024     In both the petitions, common FIR including the order

taking cognizance are under challenge, that's why, both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2535 of 2016 submits that the petitioner No. 2 has left for his heavenly abode, in view of that he is not pressing this petition so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned and this petition is confined to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 only.

3. Heard Mr. N.K. Pasari along with Ms Sidhi Jalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2535 of 2016, Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 1013 of 2016 and Mrs. Ruby Pandey and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.Ps. for the State in respective cases and Mr. Ritesh Verma, A.C. to Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel, appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in both the cases.

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

entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with P.C. Case No. 94 of 2011. Prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 18.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella-Kharsawan, in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

5. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is the co-sharers of a piece and parcel of land measuring more or less 10 Bigha equal to 2.89 Acres, situated at Mouza Dobo, Thana No. 331, C.S Khata No. 14, C.S. Plot No.3 (Dag No.3) corresponding to P.S. Khata No. 191, P.S. Plot No. 19, P.S. Chandil, originally belonged to and was in possession of Smt. Sarbanga Sundari Dasi, widow of Late Umesh Chandra Dan, of Purulia, District Manbhum, in Mokrani right, having right to settle the land.

It is averred that while in possession of the aforesaid land Smy Sarbanga Sundari Dasi transferred the land in favour of Sri. Laxman Singh, S/o. Late Sunder Singh and his friend Sri. Jagannath Singh, son of Laxman Singh @ Laxman Mahto (grandson of Bhagwat Mahto) by registered Patta bearing No. 12176, dated 21.10.46, registered at District Registration office Manbhum at Purulia and delivered possession of the land to the said settlee and since execution and registration of the said Patta said Laxman Singh and Jagannath Singh came in possession of the said land and were exercising right of ownership and possession over the same and have also got the same mutated in their names each having equal share over the property.

It is also averred that Jagannath Singh died leaving behind his wife Sonabati Devi his daughter-in-law Neelam Devi(Accused No.1), wife of Late Madan Prasad predeceased son of Late Jagannath Singh, two granddaughters namely (1) Amrita Kumari and (2) Swastik, daughter of Lare Madan Prasad, one son namely

Mahesh Prasad (Complainant) and three daughters namely (1) Shahsi Prabha, (2) Sulochana Devi and (3) Madhu Kumari Verma as his only legal heirs and successors who jointly inherited the share of said Jagannath Singh over the said property. The heirs of Sri. Laxman Singh and Sri. Jagannath Singh are in joint possession of the said property as co- sharers thereof having definite share in the said property and the said property has never been partitioned in metes and bounds. The Complainant recently came to know that Neelam Devi (Accused No.1), wife of Late Madan Prasad, sold a portion of land of Plot No. 19, Khata No. 191, Area Measuring 1.43 Acres, Mouza Dobo, Thana No. 331, to Hi-Tech Heritage Limited (Accused No.3) represented by Mr. Aditya Narayan Mahato (Accused No.4) vide deed No. 6368, dated 18.12.10, registered at District Sub-Registration Office at Saraikella, falsely claiming herself to be the only legal heir and successor of Late Jagannath Singh. The Accused No.2 who is Cousin of the Complainant and Accused No. 1, know the fact that Accused No.1 is not the only legal heir and successor of Late Jagannath Singh has signed as a witness for his wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the Complainant.

It is further averred that the Accused No.3 sometime in the month of June 2010 before purchasing the property had also contacted the complainant through its representative Aditya Narayan Mahato for sale of the property but the complainant straight way refused to sale and also informed that entire land measuring 2.89 Acres has been jointly acquired by Laxman Singh and Jagannath Singh and the same has never been partitioned and that said Jagannath Singh died leaving behind his wife Sonabati Devi, his daughter-in-law Neelam Devi, wife of Late Madan Prasad predeceased son of Late Jagannath Singh, two granddaughters namely (1) Amrita Kumari and (2) Swastik, daughter of Lare Madan Prasad, one son namely Mahesh Prasad (Complainant) and three daughters namely (1) Shahsi Prabha, (2) Sulochana Devi and (3) Madhu Kumari Verma who have also got

equal share over the property acquire by Jagannath Singh. Even after knowing the fact that Neelam Devi (Accused No.1) is not only legal heir and successor of Late Jagannath Singh have purchase the said property from said Neelam Devi in conspiracy with each other.

As a matter the Accused No.3 after purchasing the property from the Accused No.1 hurriedly sold the same to M/s. Jharkhand Agro Farms (Accused No.5) being represented by its partner Sri Sanjiv Kapila (Accused No.6) and Sri. Rajiv Singh Dugal (Accused No.7) vide deed No. 2472, dated 31.03.11, registered at District Sub-Registration Office at Saraikela. Who also being aware of the actual fact of affair get the land transferred by way of sale.

The complainant further came to know from the local resident that before purchasing the property M/s. Jharkhand Agro Farms (Accused No.5) had made physical verification of the property from the villagers and the villagers also narrated the fact that Accused No. 1 did not have right to sell the entire land and that she is simply a co-sharer to the said property. Due to the aforesaid mischievous acts and deeds on the part of the Accused Persons the Complainant has reason to believe that the Accused persons for their wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the Complainant have made false document being in conspiracy with each other and thereby committed the offence of forgery, punishable U/Sec. 467,468,471 and 120-B of I.P.C. as defined Under Sec. 463 of I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the purchasers, in view of that the case is not made out against these petitioners. They submit that the petitioners have not created any document and no document was produced by practicing any deception.

7. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel submits that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2535 of 2016 have purchased the said land from one Neelam Devi and the said Neelam Devi has purchased the said land

from one Mahesh Prasad. It was pointed out that the said Neelam Devi was the co-sharer of the property in question. He submits that if any case is made out of preparing the false document, that is against Neelam Devi and Mahesh Prasad and the allegations are made by the complainant that he is one of the co-sharer in the said land in question and without obtaining any consent, the land has already been sold to the petitioners.

8. Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 1013 of 2016 submits that the petitioners have also purchased the said property in question from Neelam Devi and the allegations are made that in absence of any consent of the complainant, said Neelam Devi has sold the entire property.

9. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respective cases submit that no case is made out against these petitioners.

10. Learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State in respective cases submit that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the complaint petition.

11. Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in both the cases submits that petitioners were also in connivance with said Neelam Devi in view of that the case is made out against the petitioners also. He submits that at this stage, this court may not quash the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. In view of the above submissions of the respective parties, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition and finds that in the complaint petition allegations are made that the complainant is the co-sharer of the piece and parcel of the land, which is the subject matter of the complaint and without consent of the complainant, the land was sold by said Neelam Devi. Admittedly, the petitioners are the purchasers of the property in question and what role they have played in purchasing of the land on the fraudulent basis is not disclosed in the complaint petition. There is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioners, who happened to be the purchasers of creation of any false documents, as defined under Section 464 of the

IPC, as such, no case is made out against the petitioners. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, where in paras-19, 20 and 21, it has been held as follows:-

"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."

13. In view of the above judgment, the case of the petitioners is fully covered, as the ingredients of cheating is not made out. As such, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with P.C. Case No. 94 of 2011 and the order dated 18.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella-Kharsawan, in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan, are hereby, quashed so far as these petitioners are concerned.

14. Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of.

15. It is made clear that so far as other accused persons are concerned, this court has not interfered with and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-