[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jayant Kumar Aged About 64 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:7181 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3288 of 2024
------
1. Jayant Kumar aged about 64 years, son of Late Danish Chandra
Poddar;
2. Swapan Kumar, aged about 55 years, son of Late Danish Chandra
Poddar;
Both resident of Ram Krishna Puri, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.-
Kanke, District-Ranchi;
3. Tapan Kumar Poddar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Danish
Chandra Poddar, resident of Gola, P.O. and P.S.-Gola, District-
Ramgarh.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Satyaranjan Poddar, son of Late Mahesh Chandra Poddar, resident
of Gola, P.O. and P.S.-Gola, District-Ramgarh.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ram, Advocate
: Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate
------
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 BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Complaint Case No.826 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance
( 2026:JHHC:7181 )
dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh
whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Ramgarh has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioners.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have
manipulated Register-II of the office of the Circle Officer, Gola in criminal
conspiracy with each other and claiming to be the owner of the land
belonging to the complainant. The petitioners along with co-accused
persons have sold the said property of the father of the complainant to the
co-accused Ankit Poddar and Nitin Bhalotia.
4. The complaint filed by the complainant was referred to police
under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but police after investigation of the case
submitted Final Form by mentioning that the dispute between the parties
is a civil dispute. The Complainant filed Protest-cum-Complaint Petition
which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No.826 of 2021
and basing upon the Protest-cum-complaint, statement on solemn
affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry
witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh has found
prima facie case for the offences as already indicated above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court
to the supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2025 filed by the petitioners,
submits that Annexure-A-1 thereto is the copy of the memorandum of
mutual partition by meats and bounds made between the complainant
( 2026:JHHC:7181 )
and the ancestor of the petitioners namely Danish Chandra Poddar as
well as the petitioners and on the basis of the same, the correction has
been made in the Revenue Records. It is next submitted that the
petitioners filed W.P.C. No.5169 of 2019 in this Court inter alia against the
petitioner no.3 and the said writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to
the petitioner to submit a representation before Deputy Commissioner,
Ramgarh and on receipt of such representation, the Deputy
Commissioner, Ramgarh was to appoint Additional Collector, Ramgarh
to make an enquiry in the matter providing opportunity of hearing to the
complainant and inter alia the petitioner no.3 herein and the reports shall
be placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh who was directed
to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next drawing attention of the
Court to the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in Misc. Case No.1 of 2020
upon enquiry by the Additional Collector, Ramgarh in terms of the said
order passed by this Court in W.P.C. No.5169 of 2019, submits that therein
the Additional Collector, Ramgarh rejected the representation of the
complainant finding no illegality in the correction made in the Revenue
Records including Register-II and upon the same being placed before the
Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh
also concurred with the same. It is then submitted that the same goes to
show that there is absolutely no manipulation or tampering with the said
entries made in the Revenue Record and the orders passed by The
Additional Collector and the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh are
( 2026:JHHC:7181 )
documents of unimpeachable character. It is next submitted that as the
petitioners have sold their land which was allotted to them in the
partition, so no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out and in view of the documents of unimpeachable
character which goes to show that no false documents has been created as
there was no manipulation or tampering with the revenue records
including the Register-II, hence, in the absence of any forgery being
committed, none of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469,
471 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out; even with the aid of
Section 34 or Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly submitted
that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
7. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 do not dispute the memorandum of partition or the
enquiry report submitted by the Additional Collector, Ramgarh or the
order passed by the Deputy Collector, Ramgarh in terms of the order
passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.C. No.5169 of 2019
dated 02.03.2020, but opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this
Cr.M.P. It is lastly submitted by them that this Cr.M.P., being without any
merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
finds that the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Additional
Collector, Ramgarh which has been concurred by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ramgarh in terms of the order dated 02.03.2020 passed in
( 2026:JHHC:7181 )
W.P.C. No.5169 of 2019 by the co-ordinate bench of this Court are
documents of unimpeachable character. Similarly, the veracity of the
memorandum of partition arrived at between the complainant and the
petitioners as well as the ancestor of the petitioners namely Dinesh
Chandra Poddar is also not in dispute. On the basis of the documents of
unimpeachable character in the report submitted by the Additional
Collector, Ramgarh as well as the order passed thereon concurring with
the same by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in terms of the said
order dated 02.03.2020 passed in W.P.C. No.5169 of 2019; goes to show
that no false documents have been created by manipulating or tampering
with the Register-II of the office of Circle Officer, Gola. The same rules out
the offence of creation of false document and in the absence of the same,
none of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code has been made out; even with the aid of Section 34 or
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioners is that
the petitioners have executed sale deed in respect of the land which does
not belongs to them rather it belongs to father of the complainant. This by
itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code as there is no allegation against the
petitioners of inducing the complainant to part with any property nor
there is any allegation against the petitioners of deceiving the
complainant. Further, there is no allegation against the petitioner of
( 2026:JHHC:7181 )
committing any impersonation. Hence, this Court is of the considered
view that even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to
be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code is not made out.
10. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in
respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh has
found prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners is made out,
hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this
criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of
process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Complaint Case No.826 of 2021 including the order taking
cognizance dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Ramgarh, be quashed and set aside.
11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Complaint Case No.826 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance
dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ramgarh,
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th of March, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 20/03/2026
