Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 176 (JHR)

Akhilesh Kumar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1121 of 2011 including the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) X, Garhwa whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 468 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein in which he has stated that on her expressing a desire to construct a Mandir in the memory of her late husband, the accused no. 3 – Gulab Chand Mehta agreed to purchase 4 kathas 15 decimals of land belonging to the complainant. It has been alleged that the accused persons went to Garhwa and on being asked as to why the sale deed is not being executed in Nagar Untari, the accused no. 3 assured her that there will be problems in registering the sale deed in Nagar Untari and as such it would be better to get it executed at Garhwa itself. It has further been alleged that the complainant had put thumb impression on some paper and subsequently she could come to know that on a false pretext her landed properties were executed in favour of some other person. After an inquiry was conducted by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and her witnesses, cognizance was taken by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) X, Garhwa on 15.05.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 468 & 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that prima-facie there is no allegation against the petitioners and whatever allegations have been made are with respect to accused no. 2 – Gulab Chand Mehta on whose assurance the complainant had gone to Garhwa where the sale deed was executed. He has further submitted that the allegations in the complaint case appears to constitute a civil dispute and there being no criminal element present in it, the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On this, learned counsel for the opposite party no. He has further submitted that the allegations in the complaint case appears to constitute a civil dispute and there being no criminal element present in it, the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On this, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there is allegation against the petitioners of deception and the intention would be all the more evident that instead of getting the sale- deed executed at Nagar Untari, she was taken to Garhwa and on false pretext, the sale deed was executed which the complainant came to know later. He further submits that in view of the allegations levelled in the present application, this application is fit to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that specific allegation has been levelled against Gulab Chand Mehta who is said to have allured the complainant and had taken her away to Garhwa on the pretext that it would not be feasible to get the sale deed executed in the Nagar Untari. It further appears that the accused no. 3 after taking into confidence the complainant had managed to get her thumb impression in the sale deed. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned specific allegations have been levelled in paragraph 7 of the complaint petition pursuant to which the certified copy of the sale deed was obtained by the complainant and thereafter the complaint petition was instituted. It thus appears that prima-facie there is evidence against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 of committing the offence for which cognizance has been taken. So far as petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not point out any specific allegations which has been levelled against them. Since the entire allegations revolves around the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the accused no. 3 in the entire complaint petition and in absence of their being any allegation with respect to the role played by the petitioner nos. 3 and 4, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against them would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and in view of the discussions made above, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against them would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and in view of the discussions made above, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, so far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, in view of the specific allegations levelled against them in the complaint petition and in view of the fact that this Court is not empowered to conduct a roving inquiry into the materials introduced by them, this application against them stands rejected. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1121 of 2011 including the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) X, Garhwa whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 468 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed with respect to petitioner nos. 3 and 4 only. 9. This application is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.