Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1614 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-06

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No 684 of 2009, including the order dated 13.9.2010 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner who at the relevant point of time was the Land Acquisition Officer, had proceeded with acquisition of certain land recorded tenant of which was Harkhu Mian, for construction of Water Treatment Plant and thereby the amount of compensation was paid to the rightful owner of the land. However, the complainant-opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 684 of 2009 alleging therein that he is the legal heir of Harkhu Mian who was the recorded tenant of the land, which was acquired, but before compensation was paid, accused Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Rajendra Prasad and Sushma Prasad respectively, entered into a criminal conspiracy and thereby they by making false representation took L.T.I./signature of one of the heirs over a blank piece of paper which was converted into power of attorney and on that basis, the land. which was acquired was sold to someone else. When the complainant came to know about this fact. he sent a legal notice stating therein about the foul play of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and when the accused persons did not give reply an application under Sections 12 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the petitioner but the petitioner without following the procedure of the Act refused to make payment of the amount of compensation and therefore, the complainant filed a writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 5595 of 2004 before this Court which was disposed of directing the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation to the rightful land owner. According to the case of the complainant when the payment was not made to him. he filed a contempt case bearing Contempt (C) Case No. 43 of 2009 as the petitioner by hatching conspiracy with accused Nos. 1 and 10 paid a sum of Rs. 4,82,05,740/- to other person. According to the case of the complainant when the payment was not made to him. he filed a contempt case bearing Contempt (C) Case No. 43 of 2009 as the petitioner by hatching conspiracy with accused Nos. 1 and 10 paid a sum of Rs. 4,82,05,740/- to other person. On such allegation, complaint was filed alleging therein that all the accused persons by committing offence of forgery misappropriated a huge amount. 4. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of Indian Penal Code was taken vide order dated 28.06.2010. 5. Being aggrieved with that order, the complainant preferred a criminal revision bearing Cr. Revision No. 157 of 2010 which was allowed and the matter was remanded back for holding further inquiry and to pass a fresh order. 6. That order was passed without hearing the petitioner. However, subsequently learned Magistrate on the said complaint passed a fresh order on 13.9.2010 whereby cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code was taken against this petitioner and others which order is under challenge. 7. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner being Land Acquisition Officer had proceeded with the matter relating to acquisition of the land over which the complainant has been laying his claim of ownership though that land had been sold by accused Nos. 1 and 2 by virtue of the power of attorney executed in their favour by some of the heirs of Harkhu Mian. After the land was acquired the petitioner was proceeding with the matter relating to payment of the amount of compensation. At that point of time a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.5595 of 2004 was filed by one of the heirs of Harkhu Mian wherein prayer had been made to direct the petitioner to make payment of the amount of compensation to them. However, this Court vide order dated 15.4.2008 passed an order for making payment of the amount of compensation to the land owners. However, this Court vide order dated 15.4.2008 passed an order for making payment of the amount of compensation to the land owners. Pursuant to that the amount of compensation was paid to the land owners but since the payment was not made to the petitioner of the said writ application a contempt case (Contempt (C) Case No. 43 of 2009) was filed wherein it was stated by learned counsel for the State that the order passed by this Court in the said writ application has been complied with. The said fact was also admitted by learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition was dismissed. 8. In spite of the said fact instant complaint case has been lodged wherein allegation has been made that the petitioner committed offence of misappropriation and cheating as the amount of compensation has not been paid to the rightful claimant whereas it becomes quite evident by the order passed by this Court in writ application as also in the contempt case that the amount of compensation has been paid to the rightful claimant and thereby the order taking cognizance being bad is fit to be quashed. 9. In the facts and circumstances. I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, a piece of land which was earlier recorded in the name of Harkhu Mian. was acquired but that land seems to have been sold to some other persons by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of power of attorney executed in their favour by some of the heirs of Harkhu Main Subsequently the stand which was taken by the complainant is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently got the power of attorney executed in their favour but the fact remains that when the complainant came to this Court in the writ application this Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the petitioner to make payment of the amount of compensation to the rightful owner and pursuant to that order the petitioner made payment of amount of compensation to the land owners which was subsequently accepted by learned counsel for the writ petitioner which would be evident from the order passed in the contempt case [Contempt (C) Case No. 43 of 2009 (Annexure- B)). 11. 11. In such situation the question of committing offences under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code by this petitioner never arises and thereby the Court certainly committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against this petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 684 of 2009, including the order dated 13.9.2010 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 13. In the allowed result this application is Application allowed.