Jeetendra Tibrewal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3133 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jeetendra Tibrewal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 March, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                                              2025:JHHC:7715


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P. (Cr.) No. 173 of 2025

                  Jeetendra Tibrewal, S/o Late Om Prakash Tibrewal, aged 56
                  years, R/o Addi Bunglow, P.O.- Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.- Telaiya,
                  Dist.- Koderma                       ...... Petitioner

                                           Versus

                  The State of Jharkhand                   ..... Respondent

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Rishav Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Modi, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC II

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for quashing the entire criminal prosecution so far as the petitioner is concerned in connection with Telaiya P.S. case no. 234 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 406/ 420/120B/34 of the IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.06.2014, a registered power of attorney was executed by trustees of Jamnadass Dharmada Trust in favour of the son of the informant - Dilip Sao for a total area of 48.36 Decimals of land. Prior to executing the general power of attorney, an agreement for sale of the land was entered into. It is alleged that after the agreement, one of the trustees namely Laxmikant Tibrewal, conspired with co-accused persons, including the petitioner to make the land disputed and Laxmikant Tibrewal executed

2025:JHHC:7715

a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and by exercise of such power conferred upon the petitioner, the petitioner executed a sale deed in respect of the land in question, in favour of his wife.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, submits that in absence of any deception being played by the petitioner, no offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out. It is next submitted that in absence of any entrustment of any property or valuables to the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of being involved in any manner in inducing the informant to pay Rs. 2,25,00,000/- to the trust; either in individual capacity, or in furtherance of common intention or in criminal conspiracy with anyone else, hence, the said two offences even with the aid of Section 120B or 34 of IPC is not made out.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs. J. Manjula Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448, para 56 of which reads as under-

"56. The practice of transferring an immovable property vide a GPA and agreement to sell has been discouraged by the following observations of this Court in Suraj Lamp (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:--

"24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the

2025:JHHC:7715

basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales."

(Emphasis supplied)"

submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that power of attorney followed by agreement for sale, do not confer any right, title or interest upon the attorney of the person, entering into agreement for sale, hence, it is submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount abuse of process of law, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer

made by the petitioner and submits that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after

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 406 of IPC is that there must be an entrustment and there must be mis- appropriation or conversion to one's own use or use in violation of any legal direction or of any legal contract, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.

8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation

against the petitioner of any entrustment of any property or valuable security, et cetera. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused executed a power of attorney in his favour and he in exercise of that power

2025:JHHC:7715

conferred upon him by such power of attorney, has executed a sale deed in favour of his wife.

9. Having regard to the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC as indicated, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is not made out.

10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is

concerned, the essential ingredients has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 18 of the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (supra) , which reads as under :

"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

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."

11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving any person, by either making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act of omission or commission nor there is any allegation of doing anything to intentionally induce any person deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so deceived. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out.

12. So far as the allegations under Section 120B and 34 of IPC are concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having done anything to induce the informant to entrust any

2025:JHHC:7715

money to the trust, or dishonest mis-appropriation of any entrusted property and except for a bald allegation that the co-accused did so, in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even with the aid of Section 120B or for that matter, Section 34 of the IPC, neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is made out; against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against him are considered to be true, in their entirety.

13. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since none of the offences in respect of which, the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner are made out, so continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case, where the entire criminal prosecution in connection with Telaiya P.S. case no. 234 of 2024 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

14. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution in connection with Telaiya P.S. case no. 234 of 2024 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

15. This writ is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 6th March, 2025 Smita /AFR