Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

06/ 25.06.2024: In both the petitions common question of law are involved in view of that both the petitions are heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sushma Aind and Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the State and Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

3. Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2019 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2018 in connection with protest-cum-complaint Case No. 411 of 2016, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 492 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.

5. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier complaint case was filed which was referred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned court and pursuant to that Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 492 of 2014 was registered under sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 504, 323, 387, 34 of I.P.C.. He submits that the case was investigated by the police and final form was submitted showing the case civil in nature and on the protest petition, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under sections 420/406/323 of I.P.C. He submits that the petitioners are descendants of recorded tenant of Khata No. 69 of Mouza Patratu and after the death of their ancestors they were coming in title and possession over there contained in annexure-4 series. He further submits that the petitioners had sold 5 decimals of land of Khata No. 69, plot no. 272 to the complainant on 15.05.2012 on which they were having title and possession and further complainant was put in possession over there. He further submits that the allegations are made that the petitioners have sold land to another person. He submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the said land is sold to another person. He further submits that the sale deed was executed by these petitioners and the O.P. No.2 was put on possession over it and the petitioners advised the O.P. No.2 to get his name mutated. He further submits that intention of cheating from the very beginning is not there inspite of that the learned court has taken cognizance on the protest petition. He further submits that in the present case mutation is still in favour of the petitioners however the step is not taken by the O.P. No.2 to get his name mutated so far the present case is concerned. He further submits that an application was filed before the Circle Officer, Ramgarh by the O.P. No.2 for demarcation of land and date was fixed on 02.03.2016 for demarcation. He further submits that in absence of the petitioners the said demarcation was made on 01.03.2016 and this fact has been admitted in the solemn affirmation itself that the opposite parties have taken their own Amin for demarcation of land. He further submits that no case is made out in view of that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

8. Cr.M.P. No. 1634 of 2019 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2018 in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 410 of 2016 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 493 of 2014, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.

9. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is arising out of sale deed dated 15.05.2012 executed in favour of the O.P. No.2 and plots are same however area is different in the present case. He adopted the argument advanced in Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2019. He further added in his submission that in the present case mutation was done in favour of the O.P. No.2 and that document has been brought on record by way of counter-affidavit of O.P. No.2 itself. He submits that Circle Officer, Ramgarh in order dated 25.02.2016 stated that Khata No. 69 of Mouza Patratu is raiyati land and jamabandi is registered in name of Sunil Kumar-O.P. No.2 in registered-II of page No. 114/4 and rent is paid for 2014-15. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

(supra) is not helping the O.P. No.2.

18. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in both the cases submits that the complainants are not in possession.

19. Even if the submission of Mr. Sinha with regard to the possession is accepted to be true that cannot be subject matter of criminal proceeding

20. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2018 in connection with protest-cum-complaint Case No. 411 of 2016, arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 492 of 2014 and the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2018 in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 410 of 2016 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 493 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh are quashed.