Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 273 (JHR)

Celina Choren v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-09

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1979 of 2013 and also the cognizance order dated 25.09.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken so far as the petitioners are concerned, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag. 4. The complainant Umesh Tigga @ Umesh Tirkey had lodged a complaint case on 07.10.2013 against Bal Govind Oraon S/o Late Sadhu Oraon, Chandan Oraon, S/o Late Bal Govind Oraon, Polina Choren, W/o Philmon Tudu, Celina Choren, W/o Late Fredrick Marandi and Havil Kujur S/o Sri Rafael Kujur, in which, the petitioners name cited as accused nos. 3 and 4 alleging therein that the complainant is raiyat of the village-Lakhe, khata no. 13 (area 4.61 acres) of land. The said property is allegedly recorded in name of complainant’s grandfather namely Govind Oraon in the survey khatiyan. It is alleged that on 05.10.2012 one Bal Govind Oraon (accused no. 1) after hiding the name of his father allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy along with his son namely Chandan Oraon (accused no. 2) sold the lands admeasuring 07 decimals under plot no. 154, khata no. 13, for sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- vide sale deed no. 9856/8958 to the petitioners and thereafter also sold lands vide sale deed no. 9857/8959 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. It has been further stated that the accused nos. 3 and 4 are teachers in Government School at Ghato Tand and have purchased the lands. It has further alleged that accused no. 1 is man of fraudulent nature and also committed other such acts. It has been further alleged that the accused nos. 9857/8959 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. It has been further stated that the accused nos. 3 and 4 are teachers in Government School at Ghato Tand and have purchased the lands. It has further alleged that accused no. 1 is man of fraudulent nature and also committed other such acts. It has been further alleged that the accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 entered the house of the complainant and abused and assaulted the said complainant on 2nd October. Hence the instant complaint was lodged. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the tribal ladies and they are the purchasers of the land in question. He submits that the seller, who has sold the land to these petitioners has taken permission from Additional Collector, Hazaribag, under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, as the law prescribes that any person, who will not reside within the district of property in question, the permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is the condition precedent. He further submits that the seller has obtained the permission from the Additional Collector, Hazaribag, which is contained in Annexure-3 to this petition. He also submits that the sale deed is also on the record. He submits that these petitioners have no mens rea and no ingredients for the cognizance under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code have been made out. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that these petitioners are very much involved in the criminal conspiracy and in the cognizance order all the facts have been disclosed and thereafter cognizance has been taken and at this stage, this court may not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the above, the Court has gone through the materials available on record. In the complaint petition, it has been disclosed that the seller has obtained the permission from the Additional Collector, Hazaribag and these petitioners have unnecessarily been arrayed in the complaint. On perusal of Annexure-3, it transpires that by order 17.09.2012, permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was granted by the Additional Collector, Hazaribag. In the complaint petition, it has been disclosed that the seller has obtained the permission from the Additional Collector, Hazaribag and these petitioners have unnecessarily been arrayed in the complaint. On perusal of Annexure-3, it transpires that by order 17.09.2012, permission under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was granted by the Additional Collector, Hazaribag. The sale deed dated 05.10.2012 has also been annexed as Annexure-4, in which, the permission granted under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was also the part of the said sale deed. Considering these facts, the registration was done in favour of the petitioners. 8. Ingredients of criminality under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the petitioners are concerned, are not made out, as the petitioners are the purchasers of the land in question. Reference may be made to the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-17 held as follows: “17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.” 9. In view of the above, no case is made out against the petitioners. At best it can be said that if the complainant made a civil case, but for the civil law, criminal case will amount to an abuse of the process of Court. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1979 of 2013 and also the cognizance order dated 25.09.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken so far as the petitioners are concerned, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, are hereby, quashed. 11. 11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. 12. It is made clear that so far civil wrong is concerned, this Court has not given any finding on that, as that will prejudice the case of the complainant, if he chooses to go in civil litigation.