Jharkhand High Court

Bigan Ansari @ Bigan Miyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 April, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                                   [2025:JHHC:12289]




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.4187 of 2022
                                         ------

1. Bigan Ansari @ Bigan Miyan, aged about 69 years, Son of Late Noor Mohammad,

2. Salim Ansari, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Bado Miyan, Both resident of village Serenghatu Torar, P.O.- Juria, P.S.- Senha, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. PIN 835302.

                                                           ...             Petitioners
                                              Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jamil Ahmed, son of Late Maru Miyan, resident of village Serenghatu Torar, P.O.- Juria, P.S.- Senha, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. PIN 835302 ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioners         : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate
             For the State               : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2           : Md. Ishteyaque Ahmed, Advocate
                                                ------
                                          PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-      I.A. No.4828 of 2023

                    Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this interlocutory

application.

3. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not pressed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Heard the parties.

[2025:JHHC:12289]

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order

taking cognizance vide order dated 06.05.2022 in connection with Complaint

Case No.21 of 2022 whereby and where under learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Lohardaga found a prima facie case for the offences punishable

under Section 467, 468, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the

petitioners and the said case is still pending before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Lohardaga.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against

the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 has sold the land belonging to the

complainant to the co-accused Khurshid Khan and the petitioner No.2 is the

identifying witness of the said sale-deed executed by the petitioner No.1 in

favour of the co-accused Khurshid Khan.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this

Court in the case of Ezaj Ansari & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 4257 and submits that this Court in that case

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009)

8 SCC 751; para-16, 17 and 20 of which read as under:-

"16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of "false documents", it is not sufficient that a document has been

[2025:JHHC:12289]

made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.

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." (Emphasis supplied)

wherein this Court reiterated the settled principle of law that if a sale-

deed has not been executed by or on behalf of any person by impersonating

rather if the sale-deed is executed by claiming the executant of the sale-deed

that he is rightful owner of the land in respect of which the sale-deed is

executed, the same will not constitute any offence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that there is no

allegation against the petitioners of impersonation of the executant of the sale-

deed being the petitioner No.1 in favour of the co-accused Khurshid Khan

rather the petitioner No.1 while executing the sale-deed has claimed to be the

bonafide owner of the same. Hence, it is submitted that even if the entire

allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their

entirety, still none of the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 420, 120B

of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is

submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

be allowed.

[2025:JHHC:12289]

6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the

petitioners and submit that the anticipatory bail of the co-accused Naquee

Akhtar @ Nakki Akhtar and Jawwad Akhtar has been rejected by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed in A.B.A.

No.5884 of 2022 and the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9592

of 2022 filed by them in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the said

order by which their prayer for grant the privileges of anticipatory bail was

rejected, has also been dismissed. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed at this stage.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

here that as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra); there is a

fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed by claiming

that the property conveyed is his property and the person executing a sale-deed

by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered

by the owner to execute the deed. In para-17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has held in that case that when a document is executed by a person

claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else

nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else, the execution of such

document purporting to convey the property; of which he is not the owner, is

not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Indian

Penal Code. Hence, in the absence of any forgery neither the offence punishable

under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under

Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. In para-20 of the said

[2025:JHHC:12289]

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in no uncertain manner

held, that a sale-deed is executed conveying the 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 inducing to part with the sale consideration but certainly no one

else than the purchaser of such property can claim of being a cheater.

8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the

petitioners of impersonating anyone or falsely claiming to be authorised or

empowered by the complainant or anyone who is the owner of the property.

Hence, in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar &

Another (supra), this Court is of the considered view, that such execution of the

sale-deed will not amount to creation of a false document and in the absence of

the same, neither the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal

Code nor the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is

made out.

9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, the purchaser of the property being the co-accused

Khurshid Khan could have claimed of being cheated by petitioner No.1 but he

has no grievance rather he has been made a co-accused by the complainant.

There is no allegation by the complainant that the petitioners in any manner

induced the complainant to part with any property by dishonestly deceiving

him.

10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even

if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint, statement

on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry

[2025:JHHC:12289]

witnesses and other materials in the record are considered to be true in their

entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code

is not made out against the petitioners.

11. In view of the discussions made above as none of the offences punishable

under Sections 467, 420, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against

the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are

considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, this Court is of the considered

view that the continuation of the entire criminal proceeding will amount to

abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance vide order dated 06.05.2022

in connection with Complaint Case No.21 of 2022, be quashed and set aside

against the petitioners.

12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking

cognizance vide order dated 06.05.2022 in connection with Complaint Case

No.21 of 2022, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.