Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 479 (JHR)

Uma Charan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-15

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr. M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 03.06.2014, arising out of C.P. Case No. 2772 of 2013, pending in the Court of Ms. Kalpana Hazarika, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad. 3. The facts in brief is that the petitioner and accused Megh Lal Mahto induced the complainant to part with money and they promised to sell a piece of land and for that an agreement between Megh Lal Mahto and Lal Babu Singh (complainant) was executed on 28.04.2008. The petitioner had witnessed the agreement and also witnessed the payment of money to Megh Lal Mahto. It is further disclosed that the petitioner along with Megh Lal Mahto went to the house of the complainant and both of them proposed to sell the land belonging to Megh Lal Mahto (accused no. 1). Altogether a sum of Rs.15,64,000/- was realised. At the instance of accused persons two sale deeds were prepared and presented before the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar for registry but the petitioner and co-accused Megh Lal Mahto instead of appearing before the Sub Registrar disappeared on false pretext. The complainant has also raised allegation that on two occasions Megh Lal Mahto as well as the petitioner had received money and both of them had acknowledged the same by putting their signatures on back of the agreement. 4. The contention made by the complainant find support from SA and the statement of witnesses recorded during enquiry. The Magistrate, after considering the contention made in the complaint and the statement recorded during enquiry, took cognizance on 03.06.2014. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner had simply witnessed the transaction which had taken place between co-accused Megh Lal Mahto and the complainant. He did not have deceptive intention nor he received single coin from the complainant. At best it is a civil dispute between the parties and the complainant shall be at liberty to file suit for specific performance of contract against Megh Lal Mahto who has refused to execute Sale Deed. The petitioner being a witness to the agreement, could not be prosecuted for the offence alleged. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party has opposed the arguments and submitted that the complainant in his SA has clearly stated about the role played by the petitioner and co-accused Megh Lal Mahto. The petitioner being a witness to the agreement, could not be prosecuted for the offence alleged. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party has opposed the arguments and submitted that the complainant in his SA has clearly stated about the role played by the petitioner and co-accused Megh Lal Mahto. My attention has also been drawn on the xerox copy of the agreement filed by the petitioner with the supplementary affidavit. 7. It is submitted that on 11.06.2008, while a sum of Rs. 5 Lac. was paid, the petitioner as well as Megh Lal Mahto, both have acknowledged the same by putting their respective signatures. Again on 24.05.2009, when a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid, the petitioner as well as co-accused Megh Lal Mahto have acknowledged the receipt. It is further pointed out that payment made to Megh Lal Mahto on other dates find solely acknowledged by him without being witnessed by the petitioner. Role played by the petitioner did not end here rather he had accompanied the principal accused up to the Registry Office on the date when the sale deed was presented. The petitioner with co-accused Megh Lal Mahto disappeared from the office on the pretext to have refreshment and, therefore, deed of conveyance could not be registered. Even thereafter, the petitioner had been assuring the complainant that the Sale Deed will be executed after Karma Puja. The involvement of the petitioner could well be gathered from the conduct, the allegations levelled and the statement of witnesses recorded during enquiry. 8. I have gone through the complaint petition, copy of the agreement annexed with the supplementary affidavit and S.A. of the complainant. It is not a case that the petitioner had only signed the agreement as a witness rather the document placed before me goes to show that he was always accompanying the principal accused. Prima-facie contention made by the counsel for the complainant find support from the signature appearing on back of the said agreement. The deceptive intention of the accused persons is also apparent when the sale deed was prepared and presented before the office of the Registrar but the petitioner and co-accused Megh Lal Mahto disappeared on the pretext to have refreshment. 9. The deceptive intention of the accused persons is also apparent when the sale deed was prepared and presented before the office of the Registrar but the petitioner and co-accused Megh Lal Mahto disappeared on the pretext to have refreshment. 9. It is settled law if any contract gives rise to an act which constitute criminal offence and also fasten civil liability, there is no bar to launch criminal prosecution as well as civil suit. This has also been held by this Court as well as Apex Court that in such cases each and every case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. In the case at hand from the beginning deceptive intention is apparent from the documents and statement of witnesses on record. 10. Considering aforesaid aspects, I do not find any merit in this application. Consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, the observations made hereinabove shall not cause prejudice to either of the parties in course of trial and the trial court shall be at liberty to form independent opinion on the merit available.