Disposed

Gopal Mishra And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2018Cr.M.P./84/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC was dismissed by the High Court of Jharkhand. The court held that a prima facie case existed due to alleged conspiracy and the denial of power of attorney execution by the legal heirs of the alleged victims.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed with liberty to raise points at an appropriate stage.

Gopal Mishra And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 84 of 2018

¶3

¶4

1.Gopal Mishra 2.Manish Kumar Gupta 3.Ilias Ansari 4.Deepak Sharma … … Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand … … 2.Bhupendra Gupta Opposite Parties

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶6

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Suraj Mohan, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

2/08.08.2018 Heard Mr. Vivek Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Suraj Mohan, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Hazaribagh Sadar P. S. Case No. 160 of 2013 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 120B of the I.P.C.

¶10

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature. Learned counsel further submits that two suits have already been filed by Uma Devi Karnani and legal heirs of Ram Lal Karnani. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioners is of introducing the opposite party no. 2 to Ram Lal Karnani and Uma Devi Karnani and the petitioner does not have any role with respect to the subsequent granting of power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 2 pursuant to which the land was sold to Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. He further submits that from the role of the petitioners it cannot be asserted there is mens rea on the part of the petitioner and therefore, on such score the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer.

¶12

It appears from the allegation that the Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. was intending to purchase a plot of land for setting up a plant for which the opposite party no. 2 has facilitated such purchase on the basis of power of attorney purportedly issued by Uma Devi Karnani and Ral Lal Karnani. In the complaint petition which was initially instituted, it

¶13

-2-

¶14

appears that the allegation against the petitioner is of introducing the opposite party no. 2 to Uma Devi Karnani and Ral Lal Karnani, pursuant to which a purported power of attorney was granted in favour of the opposite party no. 2. Two separate civil suits have been filed by the Uma Devi Karnani and the heirs of Ram Lal Karnani from which it appears that they have categorically stated about not executing any power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be confined merely to the fact that they were simply introducers to Uma Devi Karnani and Ram Lal Karnani and it appears to go beyond that as from the conspiracy angle, prima-facie case is established, in view of the denial of the legal heirs of Ram Lal Karnani as well as Uma Devi Karnani to have executed power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 2.

¶15

Thus, plain reading of the complaint petition reveals a prima-facie case against the petitioners. In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which accordingly stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage.

¶16

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶17

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Gopal Mishra And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Mishra And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Mahto Alias Govind Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

S M Tanweer Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Ranjan Vs Shashi Kiran Ranjan Alias Shashi Devi

Deepak Kumar Jaiswal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Idris Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bijay Kumar Yadav Vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation