Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2047 of 2018
1. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
2. Anand Mahto ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Sunita Sunder ...Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Sandip Kr. Barnwal, Advocate
---
09/03.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The prayer has been made in this petition to quash order dated 22.06.2017 including the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 616 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. It is alleged in the First Information Report it is stated that the prosecution case is based on the written complaint given by the complainant is inter-alia in the year 2006 an agreement has been entered into between Anand Mahto, Petitioner and the complainant for the purchase of the land in question. She purchased a piece of land from Kulia Mahatain in the year 2007 which is mentioned in the complaint petition and also got the land mutated in her name in the Sirista of Circle Office, Dhanbad and receipt of payment of rent was granted to her. It is further alleged that when she along with her husband, father and other members of her family went on 05.03.2017 at about 12.00 p.m. upon her purchased land to take possession, then accused Pradeep Singh objected assaulted her and other members of her family and threatened to kill them. It is further alleged that Kalia Devi and Vendor has already sold the land earlier to someone else and again she sold it to her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no role with regard to not having possession of the complainant on the land. He submits that the said land was purchased by the complainant by sale deed 1 of 4 no. 2442 dated 20.03.2017 in Dhanbad Registry Office. After registration of land Kuliya Mahatain took the possession of land and on the same day she remained in possession of this land. After purchase of the land in question, she got her name mutated in revenue record and she has been paying rent to the State Government and for issuance of mutation of documents the Circle Officer, Dhanbad has already verified entire documents of the land in question. After proper verification only the name of the opposite party no. 2 entered into Register II showing the ownership and title for the land in question. To buttress his argument he refers to Anenxure-3. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is remained in possession of about 10 years and the present complaint case is lodged in the year 2017. He draws the attention of the Court to solemn affirmation and submits that so far as these petitioners are concerned opposite party no. 2 has admitted in the solemn affirmation that these petitioners helped the opposite party no. 2 in purchasing of the said land. He further submits that allegations made against one Pradeep Singh having scuffle with the opposite party no. 2 is dated 05.03.2014. He further submits that belatedly the present case has been filed. The case is not maintainable. To buttress his argument he relied upon Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and another reported in (2005) 3 SCC 670 para 11 which reads as under:-
"11. As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17.05.1999 after a lapse of 10- 1/2 years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by the respondent No.1 is not at all maintainable at this distance of time. It is the specific case of accused No.1 that he has not executed any agreement to sell or received any advance payment. In our view, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.PC and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence alleged. It is also not clearly proved that to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The order of the Magistrate and of the High Court requiring the accused No.1 appellant herein to face trial would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for setting aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court of issuance of process and the proceedings itself.
2 of 4 Further on the same line he relied upon the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarthy and Another Vs. Sudhar Seetharam and another reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739. Relying on these judgments he submits that the case is civil in nature and for that a criminal case has to be filed.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the case on the ground that on the complaint petition the learned court has taken cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the case against the petitioners is made out that the petitioners have cheated the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 is not enable to take the possession of the land in question and on these grounds he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.
7. The Court has gone through the solemn affirmation of the complainant it is alleged that in the year 2007 the petitioners had helped the opposite party no. 2 in purchasing the land in question and further it has been disclosed that on 05.03.2017 one Pradeep Singh has entered into the scuffle with the opposite party no. 2. The document contained in the Annexure 3 is issued by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad and it has been recorded that the opposite party no. 2 is in possession of the land and thereafter the mutation order has been passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2.
8. Admittedly, the role of the petitioners was there with regard to the purchasing of the land which was of the year 2007. However, the present complaint case has been field in the year 2017 and in view of that the case of the petitioners is fully covered in view of the two of the Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and another (Supra) and the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarthy and Another Vs. Sudhar Seetharam and another (Supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. Further the case made out is civil in nature and for that a criminal complaint case has been filed. In view of the above facts and reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding arising out of of C.P. Case No. 616 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad so far as these petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed and accordingly the cr.m.p. is disposed of.
3 of 4
10. So far as the rest of the accused persons are concerned this Court is not interfering and the learned court will proceed in accordance with law.
11. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is there that will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order as this order has been passed only on the parameters of section 482 of Cr.P.C.
12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) MM 4 of 4