Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 787 (JHR)

Kunwar Chandra Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-23

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2012, setting aside the order dated 18.2.2012 passed in C.P. Case No. 149 of 2011, whereby prima facie offence under Sections 417, 504, 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code had been found against the petitioners, and directing the Trial Court to pass the order afresh. The order dated 18.2.2012 passed in C.P. Case No. 149 of 2011, was challenged by the complainant, as no offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Penal Code was not found against the accused-petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 30.7.2012 has been passed by Sri Arbind Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 149 of 2011, whereby he has found the prima facie offence under sections 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The petitioners have challenged this order also passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. 3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 had earlier lodged a police case against the petitioners, in which, it was alleged that accused persons had cheated Rs. 16,00,000/- from the informant in a land deal. It was alleged that when the complainant, who had purchased the land from the accused persons on the basis of power of attorney, he was informed that the said land had already been sold by the accused persons to different persons. When the matter was informed by the complainant to the accused persons, they again assured that the land was belonging to them. Subsequently, it is alleged that on the date of occurrence, petitioners Vikash Sharma and Sagar Sharma abused the complainant and threatened him not to demand the money back. The police case was instituted on the basis of the written information given by the informant, being Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that during the pendency of the investigation, one protest petition was also filed by the complainant. Ultimately, the police submitted final form in favour of the accused persons, which was accepted by the Court below. It appears that during the pendency of the investigation, one protest petition was also filed by the complainant. Ultimately, the police submitted final form in favour of the accused persons, which was accepted by the Court below. It appears that thereafter the complainant filed the complaint case, being C.P. Case No. 149 of 2011, reiterating the case as given in the earlier police case. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and some witnesses were also examined at the inquiry stage, on the basis which, the Trial Court below by order dated 18.2.2012 found the prima facie offence under Sections 417, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said order, the complainant moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2012, as no offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC was found. The Revisional Court upon perusal of the record found that on the materials available on record, prima faice offence was made out as claimed by the complainant, and accordingly, set aside the order dated 18.2.2012 and directed the learned Court below to pass the order afresh. On the basis of the said order, the Court below has again passed the impugned order on 30.7.2012 finding prima facie offence against the petitioners under Sections 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below is absolutely illegal, as it appears that the learned Court below was influenced by the order of the Sessions Judge passed in criminal revision. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though it is alleged that the transaction of land was made on the basis of the forged power of attorney, but the said power of attorney was not brought on record. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioners, inasmuch, as the dispute between the parties is primary of a civil nature. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioners, inasmuch, as the dispute between the parties is primary of a civil nature. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which have been supported by the complainant in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined during the enquiry have also supported the case. It is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that there is specific allegation against the petitioners to have sold the land to the complainant upon taking consideration amount and it is alleged that the said land was already sold to other persons prior to transfer of land to the complainant. There is allegation that the sale of the land was made on the basis of power of attorney, which was forged. These allegations are supported by the complainant in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses have also supported the case of the complainant. In the facts of the case and on the basis of these materials, prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code also. There is also allegation against the accused persons to have abused the complainant. 7. In the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below finding prima facie offence against the petitioners under Sections 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.