Chattisgarh High Court
Naresh Kumar Ramteke And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 28 August, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/7
2024:CGHC:32774-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 759 of 2019
1 - Naresh Kumar Ramteke And Others S/o K. Ramteke Aged About 49 Years
R/o Ward No. 8, Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Sanjay Ramchandani S/o Late Arjun Ramchandani Aged About 42 Years
R/o Lalbagh, Sindhi Colony, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Rajesh Singh S/o Rajdev Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o House No.170,
Mudhipar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Khomeshwar Sahu S/o Girdharilal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Manta
Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Dinesh Chandra Khare S/o Virendra Prasad Khare Aged About 57 Years
R/o Hirapur, Road, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - G.R. Chandra Mohan S/o Late N.G. Pillai Aged About 53 Years R/o 124,
Ayyappa Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer
For Res. No. 2 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
2/7
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
28.08.2024
Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2.
2. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief : -
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the proceedings drawn against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, FIR registered against the petitioners and charge-sheet submitted against them be quashed, in the interest of justice."
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant- Dinesh Chandra Khare / respondent No.2 made a complaint case for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur on 07.12.2011 alleging therein that he is the Care Taker of lands situated in the State of Chhattisgarh on behalf of Spiritual Regeneration Movement of India, New Delhi known as Maharishi Ashram (henceforth "SRM foundation"), the office of which is situated at A-14, Mathura Road, New Delhi and has been authorized by the said foundation for settlement and care of the lands. The Spiritual Regeneration Movement (SRM) foundation is a registered society registered on 07.11.1963 having twelve members and after their tenure, the election is being conducted and the committee had authorised the complainant/respondent No.2 herein to see the management of the lands situated in the State of Chhattisgarh and the said Foundation has 156 acres of land at Village Deori, Khamaria, Takhatpur, on which crops are being sown under his supervision and Rin pustika has also been issued in the name of the said Society.
3/74. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 3 - G.R. Chandra Mohan is neither a member of the organization/society nor he is any office bearer, despite that he is claiming himself to be the office bearer of the organisation/ society and prepared a forged Power of Attorney duly sealed by the forged stamp of the institution and sold the land situated at Village Deori Khurd, Tahsil Takhatpur to the petitioners by forging documents under conspiracy with the Patwari, Tahsildar and Deputy Registrar. It is pertinent to mention here that Patwari Vikram Singh Thakur of Patwari Circle No.23, Village Deori Khurd was made accused in the complaint case, but his name has not been mentioned in the present petition, as he expired after some time from filing of the complaint case. It has further been alleged in the complaint case that under collusion with the Patwari and other officials, a forged rin pustika was prepared and by showing the rin pustika and B-1 Khasra Panchsala, which have not been registered in the name of respondent No.3 herein, sale deed was executed in the name of the petitioners, as the Patwari by misusing his power and authority had prepared forged record in the name of respondent No.3. Further, a doubt has been created by complainant - Dinesh Chandra Khare that the petitioners are residents of Rajnandgaon and how they purchased the lands of Takhatpur, District Bilaspur which is far away from their destination and, therefore, it has been alleged that the petitioners were having knowledge regarding fabrication of documents and by playing fraud, they got registration of the lands situated at Village Deori Khurd. The allegation has also been imposed upon the Deputy Registrar, Takhatpur, as despite objection raised by the complainant, the Deputy Registrar by misusing his power and authority transferred the land in the name of the petitioners on the basis of forged documents with intention to extend improper benefit to the petitioners, on 30.05.2011 and 02.06.2011.
5. One Indrajit Singh Thakur is an Advocate and Suresh Singh Thakur is Stamp Vendor in the court and Tahsil at Takhatpur, who sold the stamps used for registration purpose and Advocate Indrajit Singh Thakur played his role in registration of lands. Along with the complaint case, an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before the concerned court and the said court referred the matter to the police for investigation on 16.12.2011 whereupon first information report under Crime No.328/2011 was registered for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 4/7 465, 467, 468, 471, 167, 212, 217 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 19.11.2018 against the petitioners herein and respondent No.3 herein, but in respect of the Government officials, Advocate Indrajit Singh Thakur, Suresh Singh Thakur and Kalyan R. Ayyagari, no charge-sheet has been submitted and in the official report it has been mentioned that after collecting evidence against the remaining respondents/ accused, supplementary charge-sheet will be submitted. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.2 Sanjay Ramchandani purchased a land bearing khasra No.502/5, area 0.50 acre and Khasra No 503, area 2.04 acres, total 2.54 acres on 02.06.2011 at a cost of Rs 5,08,000/- for which he issued cheque No.476876 drawn on State Bank of India, Rajnandgaon on 02.06.2011. All these lands are situated at Village Deori Khurd. On the same day, he issued cheque No.676877 amounting to Rs.8 lakhs for purchasing a piece of land bearing Khasra No.499, area 4 acres. On 30.05.2011, he paid Rs.15,10,000/- through cheque No.476873 for purchasing a land bearing Khasra No.402/1, area 3.03 acres, Khasra No.502/2, area 1.52 acres; and Khasra No.502/3, area 3 acres, total area 7.55 acres. 8. Petitioner No.1 Naresh Kumar Ramteke issued a cheque No.476872 on 30.05.2011 amounting to Rs 2,46,000/- drawn on State Bank of India for purchasing a land bearing Khasra No.500, area 1.03 acres and Khasra No.501, area 0.20 acre, total area 1.23 acres. On 02.06.2011, he issued cheque No.570630 worth Rs.29,94,000/- for purchasing a land bearing Khasra No.533, area 1.95 acres, Khasra No.534, area 4.80 acres; part of Khasra No.499, area 6.31 acres; Khasra No.509, area 1.08 acres; and Khasra No.502/4, area 0.85 acre, total area 14.97 acres contained in five Khasra numbers.
6. That, petitioner No.3-Rajesh Singh issued cheque No.43816 dated 02.06.2011 drawn on Dena Bank, Tatiband, Raipur worth Rs.45,42,000/- for total ares 22.71 acres contained in nine Khasra numbers 10.
7. Petitioner No.4 Khomeshwar Lal Sahu purchased a land bearing Khasra Nos. 526 to 531, 535 and 536, total ares 21.53 acres, contained in eight Khasra numbers for a consideration of Rs.43,10,000/-by issuing a cheque No. 476875 drawn on State Bank of India, Rajnandgaon on 02.06.2011.
5/78. Aforesaid cheques were issued in favour of respondent No.3 and since mutation was not done due to certain objections, it came to know that the cheques were not presented by respondent No.3 for its clearance, for which the petitioners are not held responsible. The petitioners had filed anticipatory bail application bearing M.Cr.C.(A)No.258/2013 before this Court and this Court observed that the petitioners have not sold the lands belonging to SRM Foundation or had not in any way aided in selling the said plots, but on the contrary they are purchasers of the said lands after paying the consideration amount to G.R. Chandra Mohan, who represented himself to be the unauthorized power of attorney holder of SRM Foundation. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the lands mentioned above and they have honestly issued the cheques in terms of consideration and when the mutation has not been done in their names and the lands have not been transferred, the cheques were not presented by respondent No. 3 for encashment and, thus, they cannot be held guilty for any of the offences, as they have already paid the consideration amount. He further submits that this is a dispute between the respondent No. 2/complainant and respondent No. 3 as to who is the authorized person by SRM foundation, as on perusal of the charge-sheet, it is apparent that respondent No. 3 was the power of attorney holder and authorised person to sell the lands of SRM Foundation. He further submits that if he possessed a forged document, the petitioners did not know about the same, as they simply purchased the land after verifying the required documents, as the complainant fulfilled the 22 points requisite for selling the lands. He further submits that if the entire charge- sheet is scrutinized at its face value, the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out against the petitioners and, therefore, it is prayed that FIR lodged against the petitioners and consequential charge- sheet and the criminal case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur may be quashed.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant would submit that respondent No. 3/accused impersonating 6/7 himself to be the General Secretary of SRM Foundation and executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners and they have issued cheques in respect of sale consideration, which was got dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund, hence, the petitioners are not the bonafide purchaser of the property in question. He further submits that after dishonour of cheques, according to the petitioners, they have paid the amount of sale consideration in cash to respondent No. 3 - G.R. Chandra Mohan through his Charted Accountant but no receipt thereof has been filed by the petitioners, whereas it is a matter of investigation that whether the petitioners have paid the consideration amount in cash or not to respondent No. 3 - G.R. Chandra Mohan and, therefore, order of learned Magistrate directing the police to register the FIR is just & proper, which does not call for any interference in the instant petition.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/State has extended his support to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
13. From the perusal of the records, it is quite vivid the petitioners are the alleged purchasers of the lands of SRM Foundation and they are resident of Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. They purchased the lands well knowing the fact that, the sale-deed, which was being executed in their favour by respondent No. 3- G.R. Chandra Mohan, is a forged and fabricated one and they are not able to acquire ownership and possession of the land purchased from the said sale deed in any manner. Thus, it is clear that they are well aware of the fraud that has been done to the complainant's organization by forging documents and are equally involved in the entire conspiracy. Even otherwise, from the perusal of record would reveal that respondent No. 3/accused impersonating himself to be the General Secretary of SRM Foundation and executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners and they have issued cheques in respect of sale consideration, which was got dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund, hence, this Court is of the opinion, the petitioners are not the bonafide purchaser of the property in question, as sale consideration paid by petitioners in respect of purchase of land has not been transacted. Further, after dishonour of cheques from the Bank, according to the 7/7 petitioners, they have paid the amount of sale consideration in cash to respondent No. 3 - G.R. Chandra Mohan through his Charted Accountant but no receipt thereof has been filed by the petitioners to substantiate his aforesaid contention, whereas it is a matter of investigation that whether the petitioners have paid the consideration amount in cash or not to respondent No. 3 - G.R. Chandra Mohan through his Charted accountant. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the direction issued by learned Magistrate directing the police to register the FIR.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
15. As a consequence, interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners on 17.05.2009 stands vacated.
16. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send back the record of court below forthwith.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru ) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
amita
Digitally
signed by
AMITA DUBEY
Date:
2024.09.12
12:35:42
+0530