Jharkhand High Court
Dr Amita Srivastava And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 4 February, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 93 of 2016
1. Dr. Amita Srivastava, wife of Lalan Prasad Srivastava,
resident of Hawai Nagar Road No.13, P.O.Hatia, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
2. Ashok Mahato, sonof late Bhura Mahato,
resident of Hawai Nagar Road No.13, P.O.Hatia,
P.S.Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
3. Amrit Nayak son of Chandra Nayak,
resident of Hawai Nagar Road No.10, P.O.Hatia,
P.S.Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
4. Ramji Ram, son of Late Muni Ram,
resident of Hawai Nagar, Road No.13, P.O.Hatia,
P.S.Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
5.Shravan Nayak, son of late Bhotka Nayak,
resident of Road No.10, P.O. Hatia, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
6. Durga Das, son of Late Ram Charit Das,
resident of Road No.14, P.O.Hatia, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
7.Sri Narayan, sonof LateRam Awatar,
resident of Road No.14, P.O.Hatia,
P.S.Jagarnathpur, DistRanchi
8.Dev Nandana Sharma @ Dibendra Sharma,
son of Bhairav Sharma.
9. Nageshwar Ram, son of Late Payare Ram,
resident of Hawai Nagar, Road No.14, P.O.Hatia,
P.S.Jagarnathpur, Dist Ranchi................................Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Superintendent of Police
Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi, .......... Opp. Party
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate
02./04.02.2016Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance Case No. 25 of 2000 (Special Case No. 12 of 2000) registered under Sections 420/423/424/467/468/469/471/477/ 201/120 B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the order dated 18/11/2009, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420 /423 /424/ 467/ 468/ 469/ 471/ 477 /201 /120B /109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been taken against the petitioner.
The facts, giving rise to this application, are that certain land measuring total area of 10.95 acres, appertaining to Khata No. 360, Plot No. 1260 situated at MouzaHundru was recorded in record of right as Gairmazurwa Land. Out of the said land measuring 10.95 acres Jamabandi with respect to land measuring 3.12 acres was opened in the name of Chandan Sao S/o Samu Sao and Bharat Sao. Much thereafter, one rent receipt was issued in the year 1968 in favour of Chandan Sao and Bharat Sao, who, subsequently, sold the land to Mahavir Kashi, the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society in the year 198889, whose name was mutated in the records of right by the then Circle Officer Sri J.N.Singh. Immediately thereafter, the Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society sold the land to the Members of the Society including the petitioners. After purchasing the land, the Members of the Society, made applications for mutating the land in their favour. Acting upon those applications, mutation cases were registered as 1970/198889, 1969/8889, 2288/8990, 2291/89 90 and 2405/8990 and then order was passed for mutating the names of the Members of the Society, including the petitioners, against the lands purchased by them.
Since the land initially had been recorded as Gairmazurwa Land, transfers of said land to different persons were considered to be illegal and, therefore, a case was lodged by the Inspector, Vigilance against several persons including this petitioners on the allegation that all those persons have committed offence of forgery, cheating and misappropriation etc. Upon submission of the chargesheet, cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 18/11/2009, which is under challenge.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though initially the land was recorded as Gairmazurwa Land rent receipts with respect to that land were issued in favour of Chandan Sao, when Jamabandi was opened in his name and the name was recorded in RegisterII. Thereafter, he transferred the land to Mahavir Kashi, the then Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society, whose name was mutated against the land purchased by him from one Samu Sao by the then Circle Officer. Subsequently, the Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society, sold the land to number of persons including these two petitioners and, hence the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence either of cheating, forgery or misappropriation nor they can be said to have committed offence of criminal misconduct and, thereby, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for commission of any offence either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
As against this, Mr. Shailesh learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, submits that admittedly the land, in question was recorded as Gair Mazurua Land, which land had never been settled to Samu Sao still Samu Sao managed to get the rent receipts issued in his favour against that land and then in connivance with the Government Officials, he got his name mutated against the land, in question. After his death, his sonChandan Sao inherited the property. He also in connivance with the Government Officials got that land mutated in his name by illegal means. The same is the case with the subsequent transferees against whose name, the land was mutated by the then Circle Officer though the Circle Officer had been restrained from opening jamabandi without having approval of the S.D.O. In the circumstances, the question does arise as to whether the allegation made in the F.I.R. does constitute the offence of cheating, forgery, misappropriation or even the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act? It need not to be recorded in detail the manner in which the land was transferred to different persons except the fact that the petitioners were the persons, who had purchased the lad from the Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society, and before the land was transferred in the name of these petitioners, the land had been recorded in the name of earlier purchaser and in that situation how the petitioners can be said to have committed offence of forgery when they were not even in the picture.
In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of "Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. {(2009) 8 SCC 751} = {2009 (4) JLJR (SC) 75}", wherein Their Lordships, after having regard to the provision contained in Section 470 of the I.P.C. as well as other provisions relating to forgery did observe as follows : "The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property ( even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused."
Going further in the matter, one can hardly conceive as to how offence under Sections 423 and 424 of IPC is made out when there has been no case of dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration nor it is the case of dishonest or fraudulent removal of concealment of the property.
Likewise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can never be said to have committed offence of cheating on account of the fact that they had purchased the land from the Secretary of Jai Bhawani Cooperative Society.
Further, in absence of any factual fact constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Under the circumstances, entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance Case No. 25 of 2000 (Special Case No. 12 of 2000) including the order dated 18/11/2009, taking cognizance, is hereby quashed, so far the petitioners are concerned.
In the result, this application stands allowed (R.R.Prasad, J) ND/