Jharkhand High Court
Akhouri Sonit @ Akhauri Sonit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:13643 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 4154 of 2023
1. Akhouri Sonit @ Akhauri Sonit, S/o Late Ramji Prasad, Aged about
46 years, R/o Village -Barka Toli, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District -Ranchi.
2. Mantu Kumar Sahu @ Mantu Kumar Sah, S/o Late Bihari Sahu,
aged about 38 years, R/o Village -Barka Toli, P.O. & P.S. -Ratu,
District -Ranchi. .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Akbar Ansari, S/o Sri Sadique Ansari, aged about 46 years, R/o
Village -Kathitand, P.O. & P.S. -Ratu, District -Ranchi.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
: Ms. Twinkle Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
.....
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
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 dated
22.12.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -XXIV,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 8996 if 2022
whereby and where under the learned Magistrate found prima-
facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
( 2025:JHHC:13643 )
Indian Penal Code and has directed for issue of summons inter-
alia against the petitioners.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.2 claims to
be the owner of the property which the complainant also claims to
have purchased from the ancestor of the petitioner no.2 namely
Pawan Sahu. On the basis of the registered power of attorney
executed by the petitioner no.2 in favour of the petitioner no.1, the
petitioner no.1 has executed a sale deed in respect of the selfsame
property, the ownership of which is claimed by the complainant,
in favour of the co-accused -Arti Devi- who is the accused no.3 of
the complaint. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the
complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn
affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima
facie case for the said offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd.
Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 751, para -20 of which reads as under:-
"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."
Submits that therein it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that when a sale deed is executed
conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be
( 2025:JHHC:13643 )
possible for the purchaser under the 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 no-one else can claim having been cheated;
more so when admittedly there is no allegation against the
petitioner or any co-accused person having induced the
complainant to part with any property nor the complainant has
delivered any property to anyone. Hence, it is submitted that even
if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are
considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, hence
continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed
for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be
allowed.
5. The Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal
miscellaneous petition. It is next submitted by the learned Addl.
P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the
entire allegations made in the complaint, statement of the
complainant under solemn affirmation and statement of the
inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is
made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this
( 2025:JHHC:13643 )
criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
6. 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 the essential ingredients to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code has been laid down in para-18 and 19 of the Judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mohd. Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (supra)
which reads as under:-
"Section 420 IPC
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
(i) 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)."
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners that the petitioners in any manner have
fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to either
( 2025:JHHC:13643 )
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit to do if the
complainant was not so deceived.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that as this essential ingredient i.e. fraudulent or dishonest
inducement to deliver any property etcetera; is not made out
against the petitioners, hence even if the entire allegations made in
the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn
affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are
considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, more
so when the complaint is not made by Arti Devi, the purchaser of
the property but by someone else. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding
will amount abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where
the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 22.12.2022, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate -XXIV, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.
8996 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate
found prima-facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code and has directed for issue of summons
inter-alia against the petitioners, be quashed and set aside qua the
petitioners only.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2022, passed by the learned
( 2025:JHHC:13643 )
Judicial Magistrate -XXIV, Ranchi in connection with Complaint
Case No. 8996 if 2022 whereby and where under the learned
Magistrate found prima-facie case for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and has directed for issue of
summons inter-alia against the petitioners, is quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners only.
10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 24th April, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
