Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 936 (JHR)

Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-05

JAYA ROY

body2012
Judgment Jaya Roy, J Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 420/120B of the I.P.C. 3. The case of the complainant in short that the complainant and his brothers are the owner of the landed property in question situated at Mouza Dindli. The accused no.1 Sandeep Kumar Jha was earlier tenant of the complainant. The complainant came to know in the First week of September 2011 from the reliable source that their land has been sold by the accused no.1 namely Sandeep Kumar Jha to other accused persons (petitioners) for valuable consideration. On enquiry from the Sub-Registry office at Seraikella, the complainant has come to know that the accused no. 1 namely Sandeep Kumar Jha on the basis of the false and forged Power of Attorney dated 15.5.2008 purported to be signed and executed by the complainant and his two brothers though no such document ever executed by them. It is also alleged by the said complaint petition that the address, photograph affixed and thumb impressions on the said deed were all forged and fabricated. The complainant immediately contacted the accused persons and requested them to cancel the said Power of Attorney and sale deed but they threatened him of dire consequences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence. It is further argued that the petitioners are the purchaser of the land in question on payment of huge amount by different cheques which were duly encashed and the complainant along others have also acknowledged the payment of the consideration money by cheque and cash both, on the money receipts. It is further contended that the complainant has duly appointed Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha as General Power Attorney and authorized him to deal the property in question on behalf of the complainant therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to lodge the complaint case against the present petitioners. As the petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., they are entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 5. Sandeep Kumar Jha as General Power Attorney and authorized him to deal the property in question on behalf of the complainant therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to lodge the complaint case against the present petitioners. As the petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., they are entitled to get the anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit in this case and he has submitted that the co-accused Sandeep Kumar Jha forged a power of Attorney allegedly given by the complaint and his brothers and on the basis of that forged document all the accused persons (the present petitioners) in conspiracy and connivance have got the entire lands of the complainant and his brothers, transferred to their names. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the power of attorney dated 15.5.2008, it is clear that the three photographs affixed on the power of Attorney showing that of Suman Kumar Choudhary, Sujeet Kumar Choudhary and Ajit Kumar Choudhary (the complainant) are not the photographs of the complainant and his two brothers. The signature of these three persons are also not of the complainant and his two brothers and to support his contention, a photocopy of the said power attorney dated 15.5.2008 is annexed in the counter affidavit as Annexure-A. 6. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the complainant that the petitioners who are all resident of the same area as that of the complainant and knowing fully well that the lands in question belongs to the complainant and his two brothers, got the land transferred in their names by virtue of sale deed dated 31.7.2010 on the basis of the aforesaid forged power attorney in complete connivance and conspiracy with the co-accused Sandeep Jha. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted though the petitioners have stated that they have paid the consideration amount through cheques of different Banks on different dates to the complainant but neither they have stated the number of cheques nor they have mentioned in whose names the said cheques were issued and from which Bank. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted though the petitioners have stated that they have paid the consideration amount through cheques of different Banks on different dates to the complainant but neither they have stated the number of cheques nor they have mentioned in whose names the said cheques were issued and from which Bank. 8. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and considering materials on record, I find that though the petitioners are fully known to the complainant residing in the same area and further knowing fully well the lands in question belongs to the complainant and his brothers, they have got the land transferred in their names through a registered sale deed on the basis of a forged power of attorney in the name of co-accused Sandeep Kumar Jha. Further more, the petitioners have not given the details of the cheques i.e. the date, the amount and the name of the Bank and in whose name the said cheques were issued in their bail petition before this court which clearly shows the payment of the consideration money to the complainant or his brothers is absolutely false. Considering all these aspect, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, is hereby, rejected.