Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Prasad @ Bharath Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 749 of 2019
---------
Bharat Prasad @ Bharath Prasad, aged about 69 years, son of Late Ramautar
Prasad, Resident of Abbal Mohalla, Chatra, P.O. and P.S.-Chatra, District-
Chatra, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kailash Nath Gupta, son of Late Ganu Saw, Resident of village Jori Kala,
P.O.-Jori, P.S.-Bashisath Nagar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand
.... .... Opposite Parties
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.
-----------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
---------
28/01/ 2025
By Court:
1. Heard, Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by
learned C.J.M., Chatra, whereby and whereunder the cognizance has
been taken under section 406 and 120B of the IPC in connecting with
Complaint Case No.186 of 2015 pending in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chatra.
3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this prosecution are that the
complainant and the accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Smt. Sumitra Devi and
Ashok Kumar Gupta are gotiya to each other. The further case is that in
urgent needs of money, the complainant agreed to sale his land area 0.55
acres under Mauza Demdem in Khata No.19, Plot No.253 on
consideration amount of Rs.84,000/- to the accused No.1Smt Sumitra
Devi therein with condition of total payment to the complainant after
execution and admission of sale deed. Further, the complainant, in good
faith, has executed the sale deed in favour of the accused No.1 therein.
On 22.12.2014, after execution of sale deed, when the complainant
demanded the consideration amount from the accused No. 1 Smt. Sumitra
Devi and accused No.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta therein, they refused to give
the money saying that they have already paid total amount before the
execution and admission of sale deed. The only allegation against the
petitioner as alleged the complainant is that the petitioner being Deed
Writer after hatching criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons
has handed over the original sale deed to the accused No.1 Smt. Sumitra
Devi and accused No.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta therein with intention to
cheat him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a Deed
Writer and in the instant case, the complainant has filed for non-payment
of consideration amount. The deed of conveyance has not been
challenged. The petitioner being a Deed Writher has no concern with the
payment of consideration amount rather he is concerned with his own fee
for drafting the deed, which has already been received. In the impugned
order, no specific reasons have been recorded showing any materials
involving the present petitioner in the alleged offences. The accused No.1
Smt. Sumitra Devi therein is a purchaser of the alleged property from the
complainant and accused No.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta is the son of the
purchaser(accused No.1). It is further submitted that the main dispute of
the complainant is with accused Nos.1 and 2 therein and not with the
present petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 therein. Therefore,
summoning order passed against the present petitioner and further
proceeding of this case against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of
process of law. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner, as made in the instant
Cr.M.P., may be allowed.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears
that the petitioner has been dragged in this case only because he is a Deed
Writer of the sale deed and without payment of consideration amount to
the complainant by the accused Nos.1 and 2 therein, the present
petitioner has handed over the original copies of the sale deed to the
accused No.1 Smt. Sumitra Devi therein. So far the involvement of
present petitioner is concerned, he is neither recipient of the
consideration money nor any deed has been executed in his favour and
also no role of the petitioner appears in the case, as regards relief sought
by the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case where the prayer of petitioner, as
prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., is allowed.
7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.186
of 2015 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 30.08.2016 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra against the present
petitioner , is quashed and set aside.
8. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Coutrt of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:-28/01/2025
NAFR-Pappu/-
