Jharkhand High Court
Jaykumar Das ? Jaykumar Ravidas vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 24 October, 2013
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jhakhand at Ranchi
Cr.M.P.No.744 of 2012
Jaykumar Das @ Jaykumar Ravidas...... ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another.........Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh
For the State :A.P.P
For the O.P.No.2 :Mr.M.K.Sah
5/ 24.10.13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.
The entire criminal proceeding of P.C.R case no.703 of 2011 including the order dated 9.2.2012 under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner is being sought to be quashed on the ground that whatever allegation with respect to forgery of parcha is there, that is wholly misconceived.
In this regard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the land in question was settled by ex-jamindar through Hukumnama and on that basis ancestor of the petitioner came in possession over the land and has been paying rent to the State of Bihar and presently the petitioner is paying rent to the State and thereby the question of committing any offence of forgery does not arise.
However, from the complaint petition, it does appear that the allegation what has been made against the petitioner and other accused persons is that the co-accused Badal Mandal Amin @ Chander Mandal got Hukumnama of Raj Baneli Estate manufactured in favour of Jaykumar Ravidas (petitioner) on the basis of which rent receipts were issued.
It has further been alleged that the accused persons did destroy the relevant page of the Demand Register and that accused persons are in habit of making such forgery and manipulation with the records of revenue.
It has been further alleged that the said Badal Mandal Amin does have some form of rent receipts as well as seal of Raj Baneli Estate with him and that is being used in this sort of case.
Thus, in view of the allegation as stated above, the criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this case and hence, this application stands dismissed.
Notwithstanding the fact that this application got dismissed, the petitioner would be at liberty to take all the plea which has been raised in this application with respect to his bona fide claim over the land in question at an appropriate stage.
(R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/