Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 858 (JHR)

Ghanshyam Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-03

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the petitioner being an old man aged 70 years, has prayed for quashing the impugned order of cognizance passed by the court below, under which cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of the I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the SC/ST' (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken against the petitioner alongwith other accused' persons and he has' been called upon to appear and face trial. Learned counsel adds that even according to the admitted facts, a civil litigation was initiated in respect of the disputed land and on the basis of the decree passed by the competent civil court and pursuant to the execution of the decree, the vendors of the petitioner had obtained possession and occupation of the land and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present petitioner had a genuine reason to believe in all bona fide good faith that the vendors did possess a valid title over the land in question. It is further submitted that if the complainant was aggrieved, then the appropriate recourse for her remedy was to file a sub before the competent civil court for cancellation of the sale deed under which the land was transferred in favour of the present petitioner. Learned counsel adds that no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner even on the basis, of the entire averments contained in the complaint petition and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore, be an abuse of the process of Court. 2. Learned counsel for th Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand submits that according to the allegations in the complaint petition, ft would transpire that the present petitioner in connivance with the accused nos. 1 to 5 had prepared forged and fabricated documents and on• the basis of such documents, the sale-deed was executed by the purported vendors of the petitioner in his favour. 3. Having made their respective submissions, learned counsel for the parties are not able to inform specifically as to whether the investigation of the case, which was initiated way back after the registration of the case on 20.1 .2003, has concluded by now or not. 4. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there are disputed questions of facts involved in this application. 4. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there are disputed questions of facts involved in this application. While the petitioner claims that he had purchased the lands on the basis of the sale-deed executed in his favour by the accused nos. 1 to 5, who according to him, had acquired valid right and title over the land, the Opposite Party No. 2 claims on the basis of documents that she is the owner of the land in question and this fact was very well known not only to the petitioner but also to the accused nos. 1 to 5, since the accused nos. 1 to 5 have executed their 'Manjoori Patta' in favour of the Opposite Party No.2, acknowledging her right and title over the land in question. 5. From the above submissions, it appears that the issues involved in this case are disputed questions of fact, which needs a thorough investigation and if the investigation is still in progress, it would not be proper to interfere with the same. This case is therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application, if at the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet is submitted by the investigating Officer for any of the alleged offences and cognizance is taken by the court below giving rise to any grievance to the petitioner.