This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed to quash an order upholding the dismissal of a criminal complaint for offenses involving cheating, fraud, and unlawful possession of land, noting the petitioner failed to prove a case.
dismissal of the criminal miscellaneous petition Cr.M.P. No. 1144 of 2009.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1144 of 2009
R.R. Sinha @ Rajesh Ranjan Sinha
… … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. For Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate
-----
Order No. 14 Dated: 07.05.2019
The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.05.2009 passed in Cr. Revision No. 167 of 2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby the revision petition preferred against the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 407 of 2008 dismissing the complaint instituted by the petitioner has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner filed a complaint being C/1 Case No. 407 of 2008 against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 alleging inter alia that his deceased father Late R.S.P. Singh contacted the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in search of land for residential purpose, who showed them an agreement for sale entered between the opposite party no. 2 and one Rajdeo Singh on 03.06.1999 with respect to plot no. 398, Ward No. 12 under J.N.A.C., Jamshedpur measuring an area of 60’ X 60’ = 3600 sq.ft. and also showed a decree passed in Title Suit No. 70 of 1999 by the
2
court of Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur, a copy of which was also given to the petitioner’s father by them. Accordingly, the said property was purchased by the petitioner after executing an agreement for sale on 10.11.2004 and on payment of the consideration amount. However, subsequently it was revealed that the said land is situated in the leasehold area of M/s TISCO Limited and the same belongs to it being leased out by the then Government of Bihar (now Jharkhand). In the meantime, the petitioner’s father died of heart attack on 17.02.2006 and when the petitioner contacted the accused persons, they denied to return the consideration amount to him and also abused. The present complaint has thus been instituted by the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 for the offences under Sections 323/324/406/420/426/468/506 I.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur vide order dated 02.06.2008 dismissed the said complaint instituted by the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after going through the materials on record. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2008 in the court of Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 15.05.2009, dismissed the said revision petition finding no infirmity in the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
4. Several adjournments were given to the petitioner to bring on record a copy of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 70 of 1999, however, the same has not been brought on record by the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the record, it appears that during the enquiry, the petitioner himself admitted that the concerned land belonged to the opposite party no. 2 in view of the decree passed by the court of SubJudge, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 70 of 1999. The petitioner also
3
accepted the fact that the decree issued by the said court was not challenged by anyone. Thus, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur did not find a prima facie case against the opposite party no. 2 and other accused persons. The petitioner also failed to establish any prima facie case under the aforesaid offences against the accused persons before the learned courts below as well as did not explain as to why the petitioner’s father could not come in possession of the said land despite the decree passed in favour of the opposite party no.2 by the court of Sub-Judge, Jamshepur in Title Suit No. 70 of 1999.
6. Thus, I see no infirmity in the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 407 of 2008 as well as the impugned order dated 15.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2008.
7. The present Cr.M.P. being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the complaint and revision petition were infirm in light of the petitioner's failure to establish a prima facie case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.R. Sinha @ Rajesh Ranjan Sinha
The State of Jharkhand
Jai Mangal Kumar
Mrs. Jai Mangal Kumar
Dhirendra Kumar
Birendra Kumar
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court