Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 563 (JHR)

Abhay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-25

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : At the outset, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 1 has left for his heavenly abode. He confines his prayer with regard to petitioner nos. 2 to 4 only. 2. Let the name of petitioner no. 1 be deleted from the array of the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 11.07.2013 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1699 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 5. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the O.P. No. 2 is owner of plot nos. 1773, 2201, 2197 measuring an area 24 decimal, 11 decimal and 06 decimal respectively situated at village Boreya, P.S. Kanke, Distrct-Ranchi which was allotted to him by virtue of a family partition dated 27.11.1974. It was further alleged that his brother namely, Devta Narayan Tiwary sold the aforesaid land to these petitioners. On the basis of these allegations, the present case has been filed. 6. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the remaining petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2 is purchaser of the land in question, petitioner no. 3 is identifier and petitioner no. 4 is one of witness of the sale deed. He submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have purchased the aforesaid property by paying Rs. 61,50,000/- to the brother of the O.P. No. 2 and despite making payment of huge sum, they have been deprived from taking possession of the aforesaid land. He further submits that complainant’s brother namely, Devta Narayan Tiwary represented before them that the aforesaid land was allotted to him in partition and later on after execution of sale deed, in order to convince them, he produced a photocopy of information obtained by his brother under Right to Information Act, 2005 in which the land in question was not inserted in Register-II contained in Annexure-2 to the main petition. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 filed Title Suit No. 401 of 2013 against Devta Narayan Tiwary which has been admitted and pending for appearance of Devta Nrayan Tiwary. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 filed Title Suit No. 401 of 2013 against Devta Narayan Tiwary which has been admitted and pending for appearance of Devta Nrayan Tiwary. He submits that in para 18 of the plaint it has been admitted that brother of the O.P. No. 2 is under legal and moral obligation to make out a marketable title of the property or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 61,50,000/- which includes the cost of land and development charges. On these ground he submits that for the dispute a civil proceeding is going on, criminal case has been filed on the same facts. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the case is made out that is why the learned court has taken cognizance. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that looking into the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, the learned court has taken cognizance. 9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of complaint as well as cognizance order and finds that for the transfer of land in question by registered sale deed contained in annexure-3, the complaint has been filed. The petitioner no. 2 is purchaser of the land in question, petitioner no. 3 is identifier and petitioner no. 4 is one of the witness of the sale deed. How the case of cheating is made out, has not been disclosed in the contents of complaint petition. The petitioner no. 2 is purchaser and in this regard the matter is already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohd. Ibrahim V. State of Bihar” (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis and considering that title suit is pending for the dispute in question, the criminal case has been filed, to allow the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 11.07.2013 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1699 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is quashed. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.