Jharkhand High Court
Sumita Biswas @ Sumita vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 27 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 895 of 2023
1. Sumita Biswas @ Sumita, D/o Late Prodyot Kumar Ghosh,
aged about 48 years, R/o -C-412, Block -C, Chittranjan Park,
P.O. & P.S. Chittranjan Park, District -New Delhi.
2. Madhumita Das, D/o Late Prodyot Kumar Ghosh, aged about
43 years, EC -231, Sector -I, Bidhannagr CC Block S.O., P.O. &
P.S. -Salt Lake, District -Kolkata (W.B.)
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Superintendent of Police,
Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. -Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi.
2. The Officer in Charge, Sadar, P.S., P.O. G.P.O., P.S. -Sadar,
Dist. Ranchi.
3. Binay Prakash, S/o Late Ram Chander Prakash, aged about 63
years, R/o Booty Road, Bariatu, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar,
District -Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... Respondents
4.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
: Mr. Anshuman, Advocate
: Ms. Priyasha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. Mines-III
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has been validly served upon the respondent
no.3, no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.3 in-spite of
repeated calls.
3. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer
for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing
the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case
No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the informant in
capacity of Managing Partner of Kamakhya Builders entered into
a collaboration agreement that the father of the petitioners namely
Prodyot Kumar Ghosh in respect of a land situated at Delhi and
thereafter Prodyot Kumar Ghosh executed a power of attorney in
favour of the informant. Prodyot Kumar Ghosh also made a Will
in respect of the property in favour of the informant in which ,
inter alia the petitioners were witnesses. On 30.07.2010 Prodyot
Kumar Ghosh died. On 17.03.2013 a nomination agreement was
made with Vibgyor Estates Private Limited which was signed
inter-alia by the petitioners as confirming parties. Prodyot Kumar
Ghosh in his said Will appointed Shiv Ratan Kakrania as the
executor of the Will. Probate of the Will was granted by the
Calcutta High Court and the executor -Shiv Ratan Kakrania
executed a deed of assent in favour of the informant. It is at least
that thereafter, the petitioners along with the co-accused persons
hatched up a conspiracy and with a intention to cheat the
informant and his company, demanded extortion of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- and as the said extortion demand was not met by
the informant, the petitioners from time to time in some illegal
manner are disrupting the work of the informant and are creating
obstruction in the same. The petitioners have threatened that
unless the extortion demand is fulfilled, they will not allow the
development work upon the said land.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying
upon the Judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra Vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Another, vide order dated 08.06.2020, in Cr.M.P.
No. 726 of 2019m, that the Coordinate Bench in that case relied
upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Binod Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another,
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 wherein it has been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that civil liability cannot be
converted into criminal liability.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the
Judgment of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, vide judgment dated
17.03.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1744 of 2022 and submits that in a case
of criminal breach of trust, pivotal ingredient is entrustment of
property followed by misappropriation and submits that in this
case, as there is no allegation of entrustment of any property
against the petitioners, so obviously the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the
Judgment of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Prakash Chandra Mohanti Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another,
vide judgment dated 17.03.2023, in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of 2022 and
submits that if certain documents of sterling quality are brought
on record, the Courts cannot turn blind eye to the same as has
been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in the
case of B. Jagdish Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2009)
1 SCC 681.
8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the father of the petitioners died intestate, without executing
any Will. It is next submitted that the signature of the petitioners
on the Will is forged and the purported Will is an unregistered
document which has not even been notarized. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners never went to the High Court of Calcutta or appeared
before any Notary Public in respect of the said Will. It is next
submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta vide order
dated 19.06.2019 has revoked the probate of the Will granted vide
order dated 12.08.2013. It is further submitted that the informant
in order to harass the mother of the petitioners and to pressurize
her, got completely false and frivolous cases instituted against the
petitioners. It is then submitted that the respondent no.3 is having
criminal antecedents and involved in illegal coal mining and land
grabbing and he has been convicted by the court of Special Judge,
C.B.I., New Delhi in a case of coal block scam. It is next submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is
a homemaker living in Delhi and the petitioner no.2 is a resident
of Kolkata running a small business. Hence, they cannot even by
any stretch of imagination be involved in the offence of extortion.
The informant -Binay Prakash is habitual in forging and
fabricating documents and the informant has deliberately and
maliciously concealed the fact that the probate granted earlier has
since been revoked by the High Court of Calcutta; on the
allegation made by the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this writ petition be
allowed.
9. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition and submits
that the offences alleged in the F.I.R. are made out from the
contents of the F.I.R. itself. Hence, it is submitted that this writ
petition ought not to be allowed at this nascent stage.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials in the record, so far as the
offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence
are:-
(i) There must be an entrustment;
(ii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to
one's own use or use in violation of a legal direction
of any legal contract, as has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram
Narayan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.
11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of
entrustment of any property to the petitioners nor there is any
allegation of dishonest misappropriation. Hence, even if the entire
allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their
entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredient to constitute the
said offence are:-
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of person by deceiving him,
(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, as has been held in the case
of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
Anr, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of playing any deception either by making
a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment
or by any other act or omission, nor there is any allegation that
any dishonest inducement was made either for delivery of any
property or to consent to retention thereof by any person. In the
absence of the same, even if the allegations made against the
petitioner in the FIR 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.
14. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offence are:-
(i) The accused put or attempted to put any person in
fear of injury and
(ii) He did so to commit extortion.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of putting the informant or anyone else in
fear of injury. In the absence of the same, neither the offence
punishable under Section 385 nor the offence punishable under
Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioners; even if the contents of the F.I.R. are considered to be
true in their entirety.
16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, it is against unknown persons purported
to be well-wishers of the petitioners. So, in the absence of any
overt or covert act on the part of the petitioners, the offence
punishable under Section 506/120B of the Indian Penal Code is
not made out against the petitioners.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that the informant intended to
acquire the property of Prodyot Kumar Ghosh without execution
of a sale deed by back door; through an unregistered Will. The
probate of the Will which was granted earlier has undisputedly
been revoked. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact in
the F.I.R.
18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that as none of the offences for which the F.I.R. has been
registered are made out, even if the entire allegations made in the
F.I.R. against the petitioners are considered to be true in their
entirety, hence the continuation of the criminal proceeding against
the petitioners in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No.
346 of 2022 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this
is a fit case where the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi
(Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the
Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners
only.
19. Accordingly, the entire proceeding in connection with Ranchi
(Sadar) P.S. Case No. 346 of 2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 406/420/120B/506/385/387 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners
only.
20. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.
21. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, the interim order
passed earlier vide order dated 09.05.2024 is vacated.
22. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 27th February, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
