Jharkhand High Court
Md. Saukat Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2025:JHHC:17244]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1426 of 2025
------
1. Md. Saukat Ansari, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Usman Ansari,
2. Mussarat Parween, aged about 44 years, W/o Saukat Ansari
Both Resident of Village Azad Basti, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the FIR as well as the entire
criminal proceedings in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.304 of 2023
registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant claimed to be the
owner of the land which was given to the petitioners on rent. The
petitioners paid rent for some period but thereafter, they stopped paying
rent. Admitted fact is that the complainant does not have any document
showing induction of the petitioners as tenant. The reason for non-
availability of such document has been explained in the complaint. It is also
the case of the complainant that on the basis of the forged documents, the
petitioners are claiming their ownership of the tenanted premises. The
complainant-informant first lodged Complaint Case No.1832 of 2023 in the
[2025:JHHC:17244]
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla; which upon being referred to
Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Gumla P.S.
Case No.304 of 2023 has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neetu Singh & Others vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281 and submits that therein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of
law that failure to pay rent is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal
Code. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the
complaint; which upon being referred to police, FIR of this case has been
registered. Regarding demerits in delay in filing the FIR, learned counsel for
the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao
passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3426 of 2007. It is next
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. Petitioners
are the owner of the property as the petitioner No.2 is also paying holding
tax, as the owner of the property, to Gumla Nagar Parisad. The eviction suit
preferred by the complainant vide Eviction Suit No.402 of 2021 has been
dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla and though the appeal
preferred by the complainant has been allowed but the petitioners have
filed a Revision Case No.39 of 2023 before the Commissioner, South
Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which is now pending. It is next submitted
that the allegation of forging the documents by the petitioners is false and
vague one. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
[2025:JHHC:17244]
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners of both cheating and committing forgery.
Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the prayer of the petitioners
made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition ought not to be allowed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, the
undisputed fact remains that the complainant claims that the petitioners are
tenants though the complainant does not have any document to that effect
and the petitioners paid rent for some period after being inducted as
tenants but thereafter, they stopped paying rent.
7. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Neetu Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. (supra), it is needless to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law that failure to pay rent of a premise
is not a penal offence. Under such circumstances, the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the
petitioners even after the entire allegations made against them are
considered to be true in their entirety.
8. So far as the forgery of documents is concerned, admittedly the
eviction suit filed by the complainant has been dismissed. The complainant
has not mentioned as to which exact document, has been forged and in
what manner, the same has been forged. In the absence of such essential
ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire
allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their
entirety, still the offence of forgery is not made out against them and in the
[2025:JHHC:17244]
absence of forgery being made out, none of the offences punishable under
Section 465, 467, 468, 471 is made out. Therefore, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process
of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the FIR as well as the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.304 of 2023, be quashed
and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceedings in
connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.304 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 30th of June, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
