Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1392 (JHR)

Dulal Chandra Basu v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-04

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 570 of 2003, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad and has also prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 4th August, 2003 by which the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and has also prayed for quashing the order dated 22nd December, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 249 of 2003, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII has dismissed the revision application. 2. According to the petitioner, the case is of civil nature and there was dispute of title and as such, no case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 3. From the complaint petition (Annexure-1), it is evident that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale of land acquired by his father by virtue of registered sale deed jointly with the petitioner. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner claimed his absolute title by virtue of the sale deed for the entire land and entered into an agreement to sell the same for personal gain. On coming to know about the same, the opposite party no. 2 filed the complaint. 4. On the basis of solemn affirmation of the complainant alongwith the statements of four witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the materials available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class found prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and took cognizance and directed to issue summons to the petitioner. 5. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in revision, being Cr. Revision No. 249 of 2003. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record dismissed the said revision application by judgment dated 22nd December, 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal and bad in law, as the dispute is of civil nature. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record dismissed the said revision application by judgment dated 22nd December, 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal and bad in law, as the dispute is of civil nature. The petitioner, however, has not denied that the land, in question, was acquired by the complainant's father alongwith the petitioner jointly and that by suppressing the said fact the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale for the entire land on valuable consideration. Learned counsel has also admitted that for that purpose a Sada deed of relinquishment was made. Learned Magistrate has considered the statement made before him on solemn affirmation by the complainant, other witnesses and materials on record and satisfied that there was sufficient material for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and summoning the petitioner. 6. In view of the said facts and materials on record, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order taking cognizance. There is, thus, no ground for interference with the said criminal proceeding or with the order of the learned court below. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.