Jharkhand High Court
Ripunjan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3484 of 2022
------
Ripunjan Prasad Singh .... .... .... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajesh Kumar Verma .... .... .... Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Special P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
------
Order No.08 Dated : 10.10.2023 Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.4642 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XXIV, Ranchi under which a prima facie case has been made out under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Plot of land measuring an area 48 decimal of Khata No.189, R.S. Plot No.1255 under Lalpur Police Station, is subject matter of dispute. The complainant claims the property to have purchased from power of attorney holder of one Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Oraon in whose favour the power of attorney was executed on 20.09.2004 from the legal heirs Md. Musa, Rabia Khatoon, Md. Shahid Jamal and others. Complainant purchased the said land and the complainant purchased the land from him on 30.10.2007.
3. The main dispute of the complainant is that petitioner- Ripunjay Prasad Singh (accused no.4) claims to have purchased the property from Bablu Karmakar (accused no.1) in 2013 by registered sale deed.
4. The main contention of the complainant is that Bablu Karmakar without any right, title and interest over the said property, executed the sale deed in favour of present petitioner.
5. The matter for consideration before this Court is that if the averment made in complaint petition is accepted to be true whether the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will be made out.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that even if it is accepted that for the sake of argument that Bablu Karmakar had no right and title over the said property, mere execution in favour of the petitioner will not make out any offence in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2009) 8 SCC
751. There is no averment to show that the petitioner induced the complainant or caused any wrongful loss to him. Civil Suit is also pending which has been filed by this petitioner being Original Title Suit No.428 of 2013 in which the heirs of the recorded tenant have been made party.
7. Law is settled on the point that in the case of execution of sale deed by a person who has no title or imperfect title, the only party who can be said to be aggrieved by the said sale and cheated because of the said transaction, shall be purchaser and not one who claims to be real owner of the property.
The dispute between the parties are purely civil in nature for which the criminal prosecution will be a futile exercise and abuse of process of Court. On the averments mad no offence is made out.
The impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding, is quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit