Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 2576 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                          1                          Cr.M.P. No. 2330 of 2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No. 2330 of 2021

                Umesh Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Laxman
                Prasad Singh, resident of Ashok Niwas, near Menka Hotel,
                P.O. & P.S.- Kadamkuwar, District- Patna, Bihar
                                                       ...... Petitioner
                                     Versus
            1.

The State of Jharkhand

2. M/s Premdeep Developers and Builders Private Limited, having its registered office at PMPK House, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.O., GPO and P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi through its Director Shri Pradip Kumar Jain, son of Pooran Mal Jain, aged about 55 years, resident of PMPK House, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.O., GPO and P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi ..... Opposite Parties

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Adv.

         For the State             :    Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP
         For the O.P. No. 2        :    Mr. Rahul Saboo , Adv.
                                        Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Adv.




                                       PRESENT

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY



By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the Complaint Case No. 2350 of 2018 as also the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2018 whereby learned JMFC, Ranchi has taken cognizance for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC inter alia against the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the co-accused Mohnish Kumar, along with the other co-accused Suresh Jain, approached the complainant for some money but the complainant was not willing to pay the same. Thereafter the petitioner along with the co- accused persons, came to the office of the complainant and an

agreement was entered into between the co-accused Mohnish Kumar and complainant, in which, the co-accused Suresh Jain was also a witness but undisputedly, the petitioner is not a signatory to such agreement and consequent upon that, the complainant paid Rs. 75,00,000/- to the co-accused Mohnish Kuamr, for purchase of five units of flats situated in the district of Vaishali, Bihar but later on the co-accused Mohnish Kumar did not pay back money to the complainant and upon enquiry, the complainant could know that the petitioner filed a collusive Title Suit no. 503 of 2016 with Mohnish Kumar, which was decreed prior to Mohnish taking money from the complainant and by judgment and decree of which suit, the ownership documents of Mohnish Kumar were cancelled. Learned JMFC, Ranchi taking into consideration the materials available in the record, has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC inter alia against the petitioner .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the agreement between the complainant and the co-accused persons, nor his signature is appearing in the alleged agreement entered into between the complainant and the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of any direct association of the petitioner and the complainant and the petitioner has been implicated in this case, only for wrecking vengeance and the sale deed executed by the petitioner and the Umesh Prasad Singh was cancelled on 30.06.2016 and 01.07.2016 vide the judgments of the court of the learned Sub Judge, 1st, Hazipur, Vaishali. It is further submitted that even there is no allegation of entrustment of money to the petitioner.

5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pankaj Dey vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online Jhar 778, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that therein in the facts of that case, this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, para 30 of which, reads as under:-

"30. In Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI [Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1 :

(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 646] it was observed that the act of criminal breach of trust would, inter alia mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or has otherwise dominion thereover. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust."

has observed that the act of criminal breach of trust would, inter alia mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or has otherwise dominion thereon. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract expressed or implied relating to carrying out the trust.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Nazimuddin vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online Jhar 859, and submits that therein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, paragraph nos. 40 and 47 of which reads as under:-

"40. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix where the key ingredient of having a dishonest or fraudulent intent under sections 405, 419 and 420 is not made out, the case at hand, in our considered opinion is a suitable case necessitating intervention of this Court.

Whether the dispute is one of entirely civil nature and therefore liable to be quashed?

47. Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety."

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reiterated the innumerable instances wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Complaint case no. 2350 of 2018 as also the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2018 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

7. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently, opposes the prayer for quashing the

Complaint Case No. 2350 of 2018 as also the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2018. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of remaining present in the office of the complainant at the time of entrustment of the money to the accused Mohnish Kumar and though the petitioner, knowing pretty well, that by that date, Mohnish Kumar was not having any right, title and interest over the five nos. of flats situated in the district of Vaishali, Bihar still they represented the complainant falsely, to make the plea that Mohnish is the owner of the said property, hence, it is submitted that there is sufficient material in the record to proceed against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is crystal clear that there is no allegation of any entrustment of any money to the petitioner by the complainant. The entrustment of money is categorically against Mohnish Kumar and the agreement entered into between the complainant and Mohnish Kumar, was additionally singed by Suresh Jain as a witness and it is highly unlikely, that if the petitioner had no interest in the money taken by the co-accused, nor they were anyway related to the co- accused Mohnish Kumar, they would come all the way from Vaishaili, Bihar to Ranchi just to mislead the complainant, rather the undisputed fact, remains that the petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 503 of 2016 in the court of learned Sub Judge, 1st, Hazipur, Vaishali and the decree in the said suit one passed before the date of occurrence of this case. Though bald allegation has been made by the complainant that the same was a collusive suit but there is no material in the record, to show that the same was collusive suit rather material in the record suggests that only because the property in respect of which, the co-accused Mohnish Kumar entered into the agreement for sale, with the complainant, is owned by the petitioner even before the date of occurrence of this

case and the co-accused Umesh Prasad Singh, who has since deceased, hence they have been arrayed as accused for wrecking vengeance. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law, and it is a fit case where the Complaint Case No. 2350 of 2018 as also the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the Complaint Case No. 2350 of 2018 as also the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed qua the petitioner.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 1st March, 2024 Smita /AFR