By the Court:- ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No.83 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.503 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.217 of 2018 including the order dated 15.04.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner got registered a forged deed of sale dated 01.04.2011 in favour of Hi-tech Heritage Limited, on the basis of a forged power of attorney, purportedly executed by the brother of the complainant namely Bhujang Mahato wherein Bhujang Mahato claimed himself to be the sole owner of the landed property of his father late Sudan Mahato and thereby committed the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third FIR in respect of the self-same occurrence. The first FIR was lodged by the same informant vide Chandil P.S. Case No.155 of 2011 and in that case, police submitted Final Form as police after investigation found that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. The second FIR in respect of self-same occurrence is Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No.82 of 2018 dated 15.05.2018 in which case also, police submitted Final Form showing the dispute between the parties to be as civil dispute and did not send up the petitioner for trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that this case has been registered consequent upon the complaint case filed by the informant- opposite party No.2 vide Complaint Case No.217 of 2018 being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that for the self- same occurrence, this third FIR is not sustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that this case has been registered consequent upon the complaint case filed by the informant- opposite party No.2 vide Complaint Case No.217 of 2018 being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that for the self- same occurrence, this third FIR is not sustainable in law. It is then submitted that otherwise also as the undisputed documents which has been filed at Annexure-2 being the compromise agreement between the informant and the petitioner prior to the institution of the case and the connected complaint case dated 15.09.2012 goes to show that in that agreement, the informant has entered into the compromise and the informant has not come to trial court with clean hands, by suppressing the material facts in the complaint, which upon being referred to police, the FIR of this case has been instituted. On point of suppression of material facts which could have led the trial court to not to proceed against the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 dated 15.09.2012which is the declaration made in an affidavit sworn in by the informant of this case, kept at page No.144-145 of the brief and submits that therein in para-5, the informant has admitted that his brother Bhujang Mahato executed the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on behalf of the informant and in respect of the paternal property of the complainant. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court towards page No.138-139 of the brief which is the copy of the certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2013 passed in G.R. Case No.932 of 2011 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela and submits that therein the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela has recorded that the informant of this case, who was also the informant of that case and his brother Laxminath are aggrieved persons and both appeared in person before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela and voluntarily conceded that they have received the agreed amount and they have no objection for grant of bail to the petitioner in that case. It is next submitted that since the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands; on this score alone, the entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside. 6. It is next submitted that since the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands; on this score alone, the entire criminal proceedings be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Pal & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2024 JHHC 43437 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 , wherein the honourable Supreme Court of India observed that it is the constitutional duty of the constitutional Courts to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants; paragraph-27 of which reads as under:- “27. This Court's inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” empowers us to give preference to equity and a justice-oriented approach over the strict rigours of procedural law (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 657 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 154 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 134] ). This Court has used this inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence (Monica Kumar v. State of U.P. [Monica Kumar v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 649] ). Other decisions have held that inherent powers of High Courts provided in Section 482 CrPC may be utilised to quash criminal proceedings instituted after great delay, or with vengeful or mala fide motives. (Sirajul v. State of U.P. [Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 749] ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604 ] .) Thus, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , paragraphs- 17 of which reads as under:- “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.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no dispute that the power of attorney was executed by Bhujang Mahato. So, in the absence of any impersonation, mere claim of Bhujang Mahato to be the owner of the entire properties, cannot be termed execution of a false document and as such it cannot be said that forgery has been committed by him. It is then submitted that in that case, this Court dealt with the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in para-9 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, the two essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are that:- (A) Deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation, and (B) Inducing the person deceived to part with property as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 .” and the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which has been mentioned in para-11 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are that:- (i) Mens rea (ii) There must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation by legal direction or of any legal contract. (iii) The accused was entrusted with the property or domain over it. (iv) The accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use such property. (v) The accused dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffered any other person to do so in failure of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or any legal contract touching upon discharge of such trust.” 9. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that in para-12 of the complaint which upon being referred to police, the FIR of this case has been registered; it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not deposit any money in the account of Bhujang Mahato and the same amounts to the offence of cheating. It is next submitted that the allegation made in the FIR, the material collected during the investigation of the case and the charge-sheet, is sufficient to constitute each of the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having hearing the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the informant entered into an agreement with the petitioner, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-2 dated 15.09.2012 at page No.113-115 and the complainant sworn in an affidavit, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 at page No.144-145 of the brief wherein he has admitted execution of the power of attorney by Bhujang Mahato on behalf of the informant also in favour of the petitioner. The veracity of the Annexure-2 & 4 is not challenged by the informant, though the informant is appearing through his lawyer in this case. After going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the informant has not approached the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela with clean hands because, if the compromise-agreement along with the affidavit sworn in by the informant would have been brought to the notice of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela, there would not have been any occasion on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela to refer the complaint to the police; because in view of the admission made by the informant in the affidavit and the agreement as also the observation made by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate dated 04.07.2013, in G.R. Case No.932 of 2011, which is the order granting bail to the petitioner, whereas the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has categorically mentioned that both the informant and the petitioner voluntarily conceded that they have received the agreed amount and they have got no objection to prayer for bail of the petitioner in that case. So, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra), this Court is of the considered view that this criminal proceeding in connection with Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No.83 of 2018 having been instituted by misleading the court, abusing the process of law and suppressing the material facts deliberately only to harass the petitioner; on this score itself, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the said case is to be quashed and set aside. Besides, as has already been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the undisputed fact remains that this FIR is at least a subsequent FIR to the FIR of (Chandil) P.S. Case No.155 of 2011 in which Final Form has already been submitted and also, this FIR has been registered subsequent to the FIR of Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No.82 of 2018 for the self-same occurrence on the same day. Further in the absence of any material available in the record to show that the petitioner has cheated or dishonestly induced the complainant or anybody else to part with any property either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, in the absence of any entrustment of property or in the absence of any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not made out. 13. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 , 468, 471, 474 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the common essential requirement to constitute each of such offence is the offence of forgery which is constituted when a false document is prepared. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that anyone impersonated as Bhujang Mahto in execution of power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. The only allegation is that Bhujang Mahato claims to be the sole owner of his father’s property instead of claiming that he has 1/3rd share of the property of his father. So, in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that such execution of power of attorney cannot be termed, as creating a false document and in the absence of creation of any false document, the offence of forgery is certainly not made out and in the absence of the offence of forgery, none of the offences punishable under Section 467 , 468, 471, 474 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is made out against the petitioner; either individually or in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons; even if the allegations made against the petitioner are treated to be true in their entirety. 15. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that none of the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela is made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. So, on this score also, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the FIR being Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No.83 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.503 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.217 of 2018 including the order dated 15.04.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the FIR being Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No.83 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.503 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.217 of 2018 including the order dated 15.04.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikela is quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner. 17. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.