Petitioner challenged criminal proceedings alleging vengeance over a 1990 land transaction blocked by a later civil suit. Court dismissed the application, ruling that title defense must be raised at trial.
Application for quashing dismissed; liberty to raise all points at the trial stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 976 of 2018
Moti Mahto @ Moti Prasad ... … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------- For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. ---------
03/29.10.2018 Heard Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of a criminal proceedings in connection with Sadar (Lohsinghna) P.S. Case No. 385 of 2017, including the order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 379, 354, 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was already transferred by the father of the petitioner and for declaration of possession the suit was filed in the year 2016 and only on receiving notice of a suit the First Information Report has been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the complaint petition which was originally instituted it would appear that the complainant was aware about the transactions which had occurred in the year 1990 and the entire allegations are a fall out of the transfer of the land in the year 1990 and therefore on such consideration the initiation of the complaint petition is only with a view to wreck vengeance and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
-2-
It appears from perusal of the complaint petition which was initially instituted that on account of the notice having been received by the husband of the informant she could come to know about the transaction which had occurred on 10.01.1990 which according to the complainant was on the basis of a forged and fabricated document. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner on being questioned as to why the title suit was filed after 25 years has stated that there was a shop in the land which was being run by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and on such score the title suit was filed but the said plea can at best be considered to be the defence of the petitioner which can be agitated at the appropriate stage before the learned trial court. Prima facie the background of the case which led to initiation of the complaint case and the subsequent events do show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and in such circumstances therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which accordingly, stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all his points at the appropriate stage.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed given the alleged timing of the civil suit relative to the land transaction.
Moti Mahto @ Moti Prasad
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
