Jharkhand High Court
Jeewan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2023
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2812 of 2022
-----
1. Jeewan Prasad Singh
2. Usha Devi
3. Manjulata Devi
4. Priyanka Devi
5. Sushila Singh
6. Jagarnath Prasad Singh @ Jagnath Prasad Singh
7. Sunita Devi
8. Shamim Ahmad
9. Shoukat Ansari
10. Manoj Kumar Pathak ... .... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kumar Chandra Prakash Singh ... .... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, S.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate
-----
Oral Order 07 / Dated : 04.09.2023
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Daltonganj (T) Case No. 241 of 2022 registered under Sections 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC.
2. The sum and substance of the case of the complainant/informant is that during the pendency of Title (Partition) Suit No. 80 of 2004 before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div.-III, Palamau at Daltonganj, there was specific order of temporary injunction dated 02.01.2006. In complete violation of the order, the accused persons disposed of part of the suit property by sale deed and being aggrieved by the said sale, one of the shareholders Ajay Kumar Singh has filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if it is assumed that the petitioners has disposed of part of the suit property despite the order of temporary injunction, a criminal case will not be made out for the reason that there will not be any transfer of property in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and will be subject to final outcome of the decision of the civil case. It is further submitting that the complaint has been forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in complete violation of the guideline laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 6 SCC 287. There is no affidavit to the effect that the complainant had approached the police that the case was not registered and without considering this aspect and without applying the application of mind, the case was registered in a mechanical manner. A civil dispute has been given a colour of criminal case which has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 5 SCC 639 para 21, 26 and (2009) 8 SCC 751.
4. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the informant /complainant, has opposed the quashing petition and submitted that the sale deed was executed not only in complete violation of the court's order but also has disposed of the share which did not belong to the petitioners.
5. After having rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties, the very short question for consideration is whether for violation of the order on temporary injunction, a criminal case for committing forgery will be made out on transfer of sale of part of the suit property?
6. This Court is of the view that no criminal case will be made out as execution of sale deed in such cases will not amount to transfer of property causing wrongful gain or loss which will be subject to final decision and outcome of the parties. Further as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 8 SCC 751 the only party which can be said to have been induced into cheating will be the purchaser and not a third party. Under the circumstance, continuation of instant criminal proceeding on the basis of FIR will be an abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Daltonganj (T) Case No. 241 of 2022 is quashed so far as the petitioners, named above, are concerned.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT