Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1789 (JHR)

Kaushal Kishore v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-28

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party No.2. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby and where under the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed in Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.375 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2867 of 2008 and the prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in Criminal Revision No.02 of 2018 filed against the order dated06.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 4. The brief fact of the case is that a litigation was going on between the vendor of the informant and the petitioner as well as the co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh. The litigation ended with the order of the Circle Officer dated 12.03.2008. It has been mentioned in the said order that the petitioner and the co-accused Ashok Kumar Singh showed their original sale-deed to the Circle Officer in respect of the Plot No.807, 808 and 809. The Circle Officer also mentioned in the said order, that for the verification of the said sale- deed, a letter was written to the Sub-Registrar, Giridih. The District Sub- Registrar, Giridih intimated vide his letter No.159 dated 22.02.2008 that the sale-deed produced by the petitioner was not issued from the Office of District Sub-Registrar, Giridih. It is alleged that the petitioner and the co- accused Ashok Kumar Singh by way of cheating have tampered with and created a false document in the shape of a said sale-deed by inserting Plot No.809 in the said sale-deed, which was produced by the informant. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant-opposite party No.2, police registered Giridih (Sadar) P.S. Case No.375 of 2008 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed various offences. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant-opposite party No.2, police registered Giridih (Sadar) P.S. Case No.375 of 2008 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed various offences. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih considered that as the petitioner and the co-accused produced one sale- deed purported to have been issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih but the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih upon the said documents being sent for verification to him has informed that the documents were not issued from his office and there remains no doubt that the petitioner created a false document and thus being committed forgery for the purpose of cheating and becoming emboldened with that the said forged sale-deed, abused and assaulted the labourers of the informant and stopped the construction. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih has mentioned in details the statement of the witnesses recorded in the case diary and formed an opinion that the witnesses have fully supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution, hence, finding no ground to discharge the petitioner, who is the accused person of the case, dismissed the same. The said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No.02 of 2018 which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih vide order dated 30.09.2021. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih considered that since the petitioner has created a false document by adding the Plot No.809 by way of manipulation and tampering with the record, so, merely because there is a civil dispute is pending between the parties; that cannot be a ground to, not to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offence of forgery and went on to dismiss the Criminal Revision. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 , wherein in para-33 to 36, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that even after the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that in para-38 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence which gives rise to a civil liability of damages. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited & Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and submits that in para-12 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summarised the principles relevant for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings and according to the said principle, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Others reported in 2025 INSC 31 and submits that in that judgment also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, held that in the facts of that case, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is also submitted that no material has been collected against the petitioner to constitute any of the offences and without application of judicial mind, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is also submitted that no material has been collected against the petitioner to constitute any of the offences and without application of judicial mind, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected. It is also submitted that the mother and the elder brother of the petitioner filed Title Suit No.48 of 2009 which is presently pending in the court of Giridih. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the very fact that the petitioner produced a sale-deed purported to have been issued by the District Sub- Registrar, Giridih before the Circle Officer and upon verification of the same, none other than the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih himself, intimated in writing that the sale-deed produced by the petitioner before the Circle Officer has not been issued by the Office of District Sub-Registrar, Giridih, is itself sufficient enough material to establish, that the concerned sale-deed produced was a false document created by the petitioner and is a forged one; attracting punishment for having committed offences punishable in law. Under such circumstances, rejection of the petition for discharge, when several offences punishable in law is made out on the basis of the materials available in the record, cannot be termed as illegal. Learned Addl.P.P. next submits that though the petitioner admits that in the meanwhile, charge has been framed but the petitioner has neither challenged the framing of charge nor brought the form of heading of charges framed against him. It is further submitted that as the offences of forgery and using forged document as genuine, as well as other connected offences, committed in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons by the petitioner is apparent on the face of the record, based on the materials collected during the investigation of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih has rightly dismissed the Criminal Revision, challenging the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih dated 06.12.2017 rejecting the application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the documents in the record is sufficient to establish that the petitioner filed a sale-deed purported to have been issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih before the Circle Officer and the Circle Officer upon sending the said sale-deed produced before it to the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih for verification, it was intimated in writing by the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih that the said sale-deed, which the petitioner claimed to be issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih, has not been issued by his Office, in itself is sufficient to establish that the sale-deed concerned is forged document and the petitioner has committed forgery and allied offences. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.375 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2867 of 2008. The filing of the Title Suit after institution of the FIR, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding as it being a settled principle of law that for a same cause of action, there can be a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding if the facts of the case is of such nature. 11. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be exercised by this Court to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.375 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2867 of 2008 as well as for quashing the dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in Criminal Revision No.02 of 2018 filed against the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.