Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Chand Jain And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 18 June, 2013
Author: R. R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 911 of 2013
1.Suresh Chand Jain
2. Kamal Kumar Jain @ Kamal Jain ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chandradoy Kumar .... Opp. Party(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Pandey Neeraj Rai
Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates.
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
-----
04 /18.06.2013. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.601 of 2011 including the order dated 04.08.2012, whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant does have his house at Mahuatand over piece of a land which is contiguous to a land bearing Plot No.1351 Khata No.55 which land had been purchased by his father in the year 1991 and 1994 from Mostt. Dharmi and Bhatu Yadav and had been coming in possession over that land. In course of time, when it was found by him that in the sale deed, plot number has wrongly been mentioned as 1353, the complainant made a request to the vendors to correct the plot number, but they did not pay heed to it.
Further case is that the accused Yamuna Sao and his wife Savitri Devi got a sale deed executed by these two petitioners, but in the sale deed boundary of the vended plot has not been mentioned clearly and, therefore, those two persons along with other family members who have also been made accused tried to take possession of the land which belongs to him. The matter was reported to the Police. Upon which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. After the force of the order got lapsed, the accused persons [not these petitioners] after forming unlawful assembly came over the plot and started digging it. The matter was reported to the Police. In spite of that the accused persons hurled abuses and held out threat of dire consequence.
Upon such allegation, complaint was lodged in which cognizance of the offence as aforesaid has been taken vide order dated 04.08.2012 which is under challenge.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have simply been said to have sold the land bearing plot No.1351 to other accused person. It is never the case of the complainant that these petitioners were there at the plot when the other accused persons had gone to take possession and, thereby the petitioners could not have committed offence under which cognizance of the offence has been taken and hence, the court did commit illegality in taking cognizance of the offence as against the petitioners.
As against it, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 submits that the court on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint has taken cognizance of the offence and thereby, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed.
Admittedly, these petitioners had never sold any land of Plot No.1351 to the complainant rather the complainant according to him had purchased the land of Plot No.1351 from other persons, but according to him the plot number had wrongly been mentioned in the sale deed as Plot No.1353. The petitioners had never sold any land of that plot No.1351 to the complainant rather the said land had been sold to the accused No.2 and his wife with whom altercation took place when they along with family members had gone to take possession of the land.
Thus, from the case of the complainant, it does appear that the petitioners had nothing to do with the altercation which took place at the Plot bearing No.1351. In spite of that, cognizance of the offence was taken which in the facts and circumstances of the case seems to be quite illegal.
Under the circumstances, the order taking cognizance dated 04.08.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 601 of 2011 is hereby set aside, so far the above-said two petitioners are concerned.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.
(R. R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/