Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Yadav Son Of Janki Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented ... on 30 July, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:21111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 165 of 2025
-----
1. Pankaj Kumar Yadav son of Janki Yadav, resident of village Chatkari, P.O
Salaldih, P.S. Barkhatha, Hazaribagh, at present residing at Flat No. 6/c,
Residential Building Twin Tower Argora, P.O Doranda, P.S. Argora, Ranchi,
Jharkhand- 834 002.
2. Surendar Choudhary @ Surender Yadav, son of Girdhari Choudhary,
resident of Panchayat Ghouraunja, Ward No. , Gram Ghoraunja Parsabad,
P.O and P.S Jainagar, Koderma, Jharkhand 825 318.
Both Directors of Swaranprabha Construction Pvt. Ltd. Having its
registered office at Chanho near Chanho Gas Plant, P.O and P.S.
Muffasil, Hazaribagh, being Corporate Identification Number (CIN)
U45309JH 2017PTC 009508. ....Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Officer-in-Charge, Lower
Bazar, P.O lower Bazar, P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi.
2. Kanta Tekriwal wife Prakash Tekriwal , resident of Hotel Pearl Building, 5 th
Floor, Main Road, P.O GPO, P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi.
... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Sahay and Sudhanshu Singh, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III
For resp. No. 2 : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate.
.....
04/30.07.2025: Heard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First
Information Report being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 181 of 2024 registered under
Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
3. During course of arguments, all the parties submit that the entire
dispute has been resolved and they do not want to proceed in this case. They
further submits that the matter relates to sale and purchase of the property through
auction by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also in a recovery proceeding. It has
been submitted that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser, who purchased the
property though auction in a Recovery Proceeding, whereas respondent No. 2 is the
purchase of the same property, purchased in an auction by the Bank. It has further
been submitted that now they have settled the dispute and as per the settlement,
the Bank handed over the entire papers of the property in favour of respondent No.
2. So far as the petitioners are concerned, since the same property was sold to
respondent No. 2, the entire money which the petitioners had deposited will be
refunded to them. It has finally been submitted that the First Informant Report in
respect of the Bank Officials are concerned, has already been quashed in view of
the said settlement, which has been narrated above.
4. Considering the submissions of the parties, I find that there is no public
policy involved in this case rather, it is a dispute in respect of auction of the same
property by two authorities. Now both the purchasers have resolved the dispute. The
first Purchaser will be handed over the property as per the settlement and the
subsequent purchaser will get refund of his money.
5. Be it noted that the counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients
have already received 50% of the amount and the rest 50% of the amount will be
refunded subsequently.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into consideration
Annexure-9, which is a judgment dated 23.9.2024 passed in WP(Cr.) No. 579 of
2024 and its analogous cases, I am inclined to allow this criminal writ petition. The
First Information Report being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 181 of 2024 registered
under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, is quashed so far as these
petitioners are concerned.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.
Anu/-Cp3. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
