Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 827 (JHR)

Ravinandan Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Afaque Rashidi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Kotwali P. S. Case No. 685 of 2012 including the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that for the purposes of sale of the land belonging to the petitioners an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-was paid in advance by the informant. The entire transaction was worth Rs. 53,21,000/-. It has been alleged that the accused persons had further induced the informant to hand over an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It has been alleged that although 10,00,000/-was taken from the informant but neither the sale deed was executed nor the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-was returned back. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Kotwali P. S. Case No. 685 of 2012 was instituted and upon investigation on submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an agreement was executed between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant with respect to the sale of the plot of land and in fact due to non-execution of the sale deed a suit had been instituted by the informant with a prayer for specific performance of the contract. Learned counsel also submits that the dispute is apparently civil in nature and in fact there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners from the very beginning so as to come within the purview of an offence committed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent conduct of an accused cannot be the sole test for giving a colour of criminality to the said case. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 588 of 2008. 6. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 588 of 2008. 6. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has submitted that on the inducement made by the petitioners an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-was given by way of cash whereas the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-was given by cheque. Learned counsel has submitted that the intention of the petitioners is apparent from perusal of the complaint petition as inspite of taking an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-from the informant neither the sale deed was registered nor the amount was ever returned back. It has been submitted that infact the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-which was given subsequent to the earlier amount paid was utilized by the petitioners to settle his loan account and such circumstance do point to the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. It has also been submitted that merely because a title suit has been preferred by the petitioners that cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal prosecution as a given set facts may give rise to a civil as well as a criminal case. Learned counsel thus submits that there is no error in the order taking cognizance and present application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. The dispute as would seem from perusal of the complaint petition which was initially instituted and the same was sent to the Police for registering a First Information Report in terms of Section 156(3) C.P.C. reveals a transaction between the petitioners and the complainant with respect to a piece of land in which as per the agreement which has been brought on record by the petitioners and which has not been disputed by the opposite party no. 2 an amount of Rs. 53,21,000/-was to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner no. 1. Pursuant to the agreement which was entered into on 12.12.2011 certain amounts were paid to the petitioners. It is the grievance of the informant that the sale deed was not executed and the money was also not returned. 2 an amount of Rs. 53,21,000/-was to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner no. 1. Pursuant to the agreement which was entered into on 12.12.2011 certain amounts were paid to the petitioners. It is the grievance of the informant that the sale deed was not executed and the money was also not returned. It appears that with respect to the facts stated in the complaint petition a title suit has been preferred by the informant being Title Suit No. 418 of 2012 in which prayer has been made for passing a decree for specific performance of contract enforcing the agreement dated 12.12.2011 against the defendant by directing the defendant to execute a registered deed of sale transferring the suit property after receipt of the balance consideration amount. It thus appears that the informant has also availed the civil remedy available to him. It is settled principle of law that a cause of action may give rise to civil wrong as well as criminal liability. It is to be seen in the background of the allegation as to whether in view of the allegation levelled in the First Information Report the criminal case can be allowed to continue as against the petitioners. 8. As has been stated above, the entire dispute is with respect to the sale and purchase of a piece of land. Merely because the petitioners deposited the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-to the bank for settlement of loan account that by itself cannot constitute a criminal offence or suggest that there was a deception on the part of the petitioners. Mere breach of contract cannot be rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. The First Information Report also reveals that inspite of repeated request by the informant to execute the sale deed on the payment of balance consideration of amount of Rs. 43,26,000/-the same was never agreed upon which can be construed to mean that the petitioners did not have dishonest intention to cheat the informant. The allegations which has been levelled in the First Information Report can at best invite civil consequences and for which the informant has already chosen his remedy before the appropriate forum by preferring a suit which is said to be still pending. The allegations which has been levelled in the First Information Report can at best invite civil consequences and for which the informant has already chosen his remedy before the appropriate forum by preferring a suit which is said to be still pending. In such circumstances, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of Court. 9. As cumulative result of the discussions made hereinabove, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Kotwali P. S. Case No. 685 of 2012 including the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, quashed and set aside.