Jharkhand High Court
Rukmakesh Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 12 September, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 782 of 2014
----
Rukmakesh Mishra .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 148 of 2014
----
Sanjeev Verma .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 182 of 2014
----
Madan Gopal Singh .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 234 of 2014
----
Rajiv David .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand, through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 278 of 2014
----
Madan Gopal Singh .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 350 of 2014
----
Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand through Officer in charge, P.S. Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 412 of 2014
----
Rajiv David .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 521 of 2014
----
Binod Kumar .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
With
2
Cr.M.P. No. 706 of 2014
----
Sanjay Kumar .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
With
Cr.M.P. No. 827 of 2014
----
Jagdish Prasad Das .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand through Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma .... Opposite Party With Cr.M.P. No. 1224 of 2014
----
Pradip Prasana Kessop .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
With
Cr.M.P. No. 685 of 2021
----
Neeraj Verma @ Neeraj Kumar Verma .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior counsel [Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021] Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior counsel [Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014] Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014] Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014] Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 & Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014] Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate [Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014] For the Respondent State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P [Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014] Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P., [Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014 & Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014] Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. [Cr.M.P. Nos.350 of 2014, 706 of 2014 & 827 of 2014] Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan A.P.P. [Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014] Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P [Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014] Mr. Fahad Allam A.P.P. [Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014]
----
316/12.09.2023 Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned assisting-counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014; Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014, Mr. V.S. Sahay, the learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.706 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No. 827 of 2014, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2014, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, the learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014 and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014.
2. In all these petitions, a common question of facts and law as well as the F.I.R and the order taking cognizance are under challenge and that is why all these petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.
4
3. In all these petitions, the prayer is made for quashing of the Koderma P.S. Case No.11 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.44 of 2014, registered for the offence under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 466, 474, 477A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 82(D) of the Registration Act against the petitioners. The order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2021 is under challenge in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 so far as the petitioner namely Neeraj Verma @ Neeraj Kr. Verma is concerned. The cognizance order is also under challenge in Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014.
4. The First Information Report (FIR) is registered alleging therein that the prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of written statement of the informant namely Jitendra Kumar Deo, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma stating therein that on 12.08.2013 sanction for the Registration of Sale of the land appertaining to Khata No. 01, Plot nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 total area 427 acres situated at Village Taral, within Domchanch Anchal (Thana no. 10) has been given by Sri Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar, Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Koderma vide Eleven Sale Deeds bearing nos. 4237, 4238, 4239, 4240, 4241, 4242, 4243, 4244, 4245, 4246 and 4247 all dated 12.08.2013.
It is alleged in the FIR that there is no plot over and above Plot no. 10 at Village - Terai within Domchanch Prakhand (Thana no. 10) and therefore. Plot no. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 are baseless and imaginary plots and therefore, no registration can be made for the aforesaid imaginary lands of the aforesaid plots and therefore the registration is false and forged.
It is further alleged in the FIR that identity card given by all the venders are fake and forged and the documents have been prepared with the help of forged identity card.
It is further alleged in the FIR that false identification cards have 5 been submitted by the identifiers of the sellers of the land and therefore, all of them are guilty for impersonation.
It is further alleged in the FIR that the affidavits filed by the purchaser, namely, the representative of Sri Rajeev David, Tata Steel Ltd. Company and the sellers are false and fabricated.
It is further alleged in the FIR that the stamp duty and registration cost amounting to Rs.1.34 Crore has been deposited after withdrawing the same from Government treasury.
It is further alleged in the FIR that in the circumstances stated above, in connivance with all the staff of the Registry Office, all the persons involved in connection with the execution of the alleged registered Sale Deed, vendors and vendees, identifiers and witnesses whose names are mentioned in the written report the aforesaid registration have been completed.
It is further alleged in the FIR that the main intention behind the execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed is only to grab the consideration amount amounting to Rs. 4,78,22,700.00/-. Therefore, it has been requested by the Informant to institute an F.I.R. against the erring persons and to do necessary action against them.
5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He further submits that what are the materials against the petitioner has not been disclosed in the order taking cognizance and inspite of that, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. He submits that if reason is not there and order taking cognizance is cryptic one, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj v. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199.
6
6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.148 of 2014 submits that the petitioner was posted as Computer Operator in the Office of the District Sub-Registrar at Koderma. He submits that the duty of the petitioner was to enter the registered document after completion of the registration. He further submits that the learned Court without giving any cogent reasons has been pleased to take cognizance and there is no allegation against the petitioner of any conspiracy and the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. He submits that Section 82 of the Registration Act is of the year 1908 and the procedures are prescribed therein and if the special provision is there, the I.P.C section is not attracted. On these grounds, he submits that the proceeding may kindly be quashed.
7. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014 submits that the petitioner was posted as District Sub-Registrar, Koderma. He submits that the concerned D.F.O by way of Annexure-4 has given consent for sale of the land. He further submits that in view of Annexure-5 the Circle Officer's report is there who has disclosed about the nature of the land. By way of referring Annexure-1 of the petition, he submits that in view of the said document which is issued by the Government of Jharkhand, the enquiry by the registering authority is not required. He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others (supra). He further submits that section 71 and 72 of the Registration Act speaks of reasons for refusal to register to be recorded and there is provision of appeal under section 72 of the Registration Act. He submits 7 that no case against the petitioner is made out.
8. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.521 of 2014 submits that the petitioner was the Deed Writer and no role is described. By way of referring Annexure-2 series, he submits that the documents were provided by the vendor and the vendee and on the basis of that he has only drafted the deed and apart from that, there is no allegation against the petitioner and the proceeding is bad in law.
9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned assisting counsel on behalf of the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.234 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.278 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.412 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.782 of 2014 submits that the petitioner(s) are the officers of M/s Tata Steel Limited. He further submits that at page no.37 at sl.no.7 the name of the petitioners have been disclosed in the F.I.R. He submits that M/s Tata Steel Limited has entered in the Facilitation Agreement by way of Annexure-3 and 4 for purchasing the land with M/s Mascott Real Estate Private Limited. He submits that legal opinion was obtained with regard to the land in question and non-encumbrance certificate was provided and Tata Steel Limited has also issued Public Notice and in Annexure-8 the Circle Officer has certified about the land in question. He submits that Final Form has been submitted and petitioner namely, Madan Gopal Singh has been exonerated who has signed the deed on behalf of Tata Steel Limited. However, the learned court has taken cognizance against him also without giving any reason. He submits that so far as the petitioner namely Jagdish Prasad Das is concerned, he is not named in the F.I.R, however, the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that petitioner Madan Gopal Singh has not been sent up for trial, however, the learned court has taken cognizance against him also. 8 He submits that the company is not made an accused. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others (supra) and the recent judgment rendered in the case of Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626. He submits that all these petitioners are the officers of the company-Tata Steel Limited and they have not the benefitted persons. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel submits that in Cr.M.P. No.728 of 2014, the petitioner is the Block Development Officer. He submits that the petitioner in this petition has been implicated only on the ground that being the Incharge of the Circle Officer, he has issued the certificate.
10. Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.706 of 2014 has adopted the argument of Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr.M.P No.148 of 2014 as the petitioner of that case is also the Deed Writer.
11. In the above background, all the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners jointly submit that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law and the order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State opposed the prayer made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and submit that the F.I.R was lodged on the basis of the written report which is contained in Memo No.14 dated 09.01.2014 given by the O.P.No.2.
13. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State in Cr.M.P.No.521 of 2014 submits that in the name of Tata Steel Limited eleven sale deeds have been executed through the 9 agents of the land situated over Mouja: Tarai, Block Domchanch, Khata No.1, Plot numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19, having total area of 427 acres, which has been approved by the Assistant Registrar, Koderma for its registration. She further submits that the registration of sale deeds are forged as because the Mauja-Tarai there is no plot number the plot nos. 10, 11 to 16 and 19 are not in existence and it is the imaginary lands. She submits that eleven sellers have submitted their identity letters which are also forged and fabricated and all the sellers have used the identity letters of different persons and the Assistant Registrar, Koderma permitted the registration believing them to be true. The identifier has also submitted the wrong identity letters. An amount of Rs.1.3 crore has been deposited in the Government Treasure with regard to the stamp duty and registration fees. She submits that all the persons and the officials of the Department of Registration in connivance with other persons have given to such forgery and the amount which has been received by the Government through the stamp duties and the registration fees are illegal. She submits that in this background, at this stage, this Court may not interfere in these matters and all the arguments are the subject matter of trial. She submits that there are allegations against all the petitioners and in view of that, this Court may not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction at this stage.
14. Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P.No.148 of 2014 and Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014 submits that so far the petitioner Madan Gopal Singh is concerned, he has not been sent up for trial, however, the learned court has taken cognizance in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014. He submits that, however, there are allegations against the petitioner and the case is made out.
15. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.350 of 2014 submits that 10 there are direct allegations against this petitioner and in view of that, the case of interference is not made out.
16. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the F.I.R as well as the order taking cognizance which has been brought on record.
17. In Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014, the charge-sheet has also been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No.3692 of 2023.
18. Looking into the averments and the contents of the F.I.R, it appears that there are allegations of registration of plots which are not in existence and there are allegations against the petitioners to act on different capacity as some are officers of Tata Steel Limited and District Sub-Registrar, Koderma, Block Development Officer (BDO) who was In- charge of the Circle Officer and the deed writers. However, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners even who are not named in the F.I.R and there are two petitioners who are not named in the F.I.R in Cr.M.P. No.685 of 2021 and Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2014 and in Cr.M.P. No.182 of 2014, the petitioner was not sent up for trial and inspite of that, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner namely, Madan Gopal Singh. There is no doubt that the learned court can take a decision even against a person who is not sent up for trial, but if such a situation is there, at least, the prima facie materials of differing with the charge sheet, is required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance which is lacking in the case in hand. In view of these facts, the Court finds that the learned court has taken cognizance against atleast one of the accused person who has signed the deed on behalf of Tata Steel Limited who was not sent up for trial and two of the accused persons were not named in the F.I.R. If there is no such indication in the case of application of mind where the learned Magistrate proceeds under 11 section 190 and 204 of the Cr.P.C, under section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of powers of the criminal court. In summoning the accused, the application of mind must be there. The said order must be on the satisfaction and it was the duty of the court as it is not the post office to pass an order in a routine manner. A reference may be made to the case of Birla Corporation Limited v. Advent Investment and Holdings Limited and Others, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610 wherein at paragraph nos.33, 34 and 35 it has been held as under:
"33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to the accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 430, para 22) "22. ... The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self- respect and image in society. Hence, the process of 12 criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment."
(emphasis supplied)
34. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para 28, it was held as under: (SCC p. 760) "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
The principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of course, the criminal case against a person cannot be set into motion was reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Ltd.
35. To be summoned/to appear before the criminal court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment."
13
19. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken note of the case of 'Pepsi Foods Limited' at paragraph no.34.
20. Section 190 and 200 to 204 of the Cr.P.C. are required to be carefully examined before issuing the summoning order against any accused and criminal liability can be imputed to the company based on the principles of alter ego and reverse the application on principle is not permissible. A reference may be made to the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I. reported in (2014) 4 SCC 609 wherein it has been held that the application of mind is necessary and satisfaction about the allegation if proved to constitute an offence. Paragraph no.48 of the said judgment is quoted below:
"48. Sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence is the application of mind by the Magistrate and his satisfaction that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence. It is, therefore, imperative that on a complaint or on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to consider the question as to whether the same discloses commission of an offence and is required to form such an opinion in this respect. When he does so and decides to issue process, he shall be said to have taken cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the only consideration before the court remains to consider judiciously whether the material on which the prosecution proposes to prosecute the accused brings out a prima facie case or not."
21. There is no doubt that there are parameters of quashing of the F.I.R and if there are allegations against the petitioners, the High Court is not required to roam into and come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioners and that can be only a subject matter of trial. In the case in hand, the charge sheet has already been submitted and thereafter the learned court has been pleased to take congnizance. In a case where the charge sheet has been submitted, the learned court task of taking cognizance comes to a much easier as the entire facts are before the court to examine whether the case to further 14 proceed is made out or not. However, in a complaint case where the witnesses of the complaint case examined by the learned court, the learned court is further put with a greater task to find out the prima facie case. In the above background, the principle with regard to order taking cognizance on submission of charge sheet and in an enquiry case, pursuant to the complaint, are not in dispute, but at the same time, by a charge sheet a person is not sent up for trial and the learned court is going to take charge against that person atleast the reason of taking cognizance against that person is required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance. Admittedly, the officers of Tata Steel Limited have also been made accused and in this background, the reasons of cognizance was required to be disclosed by the learned court which is lacking in the case in hand.
22. In view of the above, the order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2021 in Koderma P.S.Case No.11 of 2014, G.R. No.44 of 2014 is set-aside.
23. These matters are remitted back to the learned court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
24. These petitions are allowed in the above terms and disposed of.
25. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R.