Allowed

Tarapado Dhiwar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2022Cr.M.P./2172/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, in a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Tarapado Dhiwar, quashed criminal proceedings against him for alleged encroachment on land. The court accepted evidence of a bona fide purchase title and a favorable order under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, finding prosecution bad in law.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2015 are quashed.

Tarapado Dhiwar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 2172 of 2015

¶5

----

¶6

Tarapado Dhiwar, s/o late Amulya Kewat, R/o Village –Ramkanali, P.O. Debiyana, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad ….. Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

The State of Jharkhand …... Opposite Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P

¶12

¶13

13 /01.12.2022 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, the learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶14

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2015 arising out of First Information Report being Nirsa P.S.Case No.206 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.2601 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶15

The Circle Officer has instituted the F.I.R alleging therein that the petitioner is encroaching the Gair Abad land situated at Ramkanali Mauza No.134, Khata No.118, Plot No.2697 by constructing house over the said land inspite of repeated information on the basis of which the FIR being Nirsa P.S. Case No.206 of 2015 dated 09.05.2015 for the alleged offences under section 447 of IPC against the petitioner has been lodged.

¶16

Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being prosecuted for trespassing and encroaching gairmazurua land and the record suggest that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land. He further submits that the petitioner was giving rent and in fact the order being compensation case no.5457/1955-56 his name finds place at sl.no.91. He further submits that his application under section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act

¶17

¶18

has already been filed by the petitioner which was allowed and had attained finality and no appeal has been preferred against the said order by the State. According to him, that initially petitioner has been noticed by the Circle Officer with respect to the alleged encroachment and petitioner has made a detailed reply. He further submits that there was a direction of the Circle Officer, Nirsa to the Office Incharge, Nirsa Police Station to get the encroached land situated at Mauja Ramkanali, Mauja No.134, Khata No.118, Plot No.2697, measuring area 6.51 acres out of 13.60 acres and vacated. He elaborated his argument by way of submitting that letter dated 06.04.2015 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.1797 of 2015 preferred by the petitioner which has been allowed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that in view of the order of this Court and in view of the document as well as the orders passed under section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act the petitioner’s prosecution is bad in law.

¶19

On the other hand, Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the Circle Officer has lodged the case alleging that the petitioner has encroached the land in question and the learned court has taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶20

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the Annexure-3 suggest for raiyati bandobasti patta, 1941 in favour of the deceased father of the petitioner in the year 1941 and the rent receipt of the jamabandi has been annexed as Annexure-4 series. Annexure -5 suggest that after vesting in 1950 under the B.L.R Act u/s 5,6 and 7 return was submitted and the father of the petitioner late Amulya Kewat was entered as raiyat on payment of compensation to then landlord through Compensation Case No.5457/55-56 in the office of

¶21

¶22

the informant. By order dated 06.06.2008, the court of Revenue Officer, Dhanbad make correction in the mutation papers and also made entry in the Register-II which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the petition. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner which has been noted hereinabove was not demolished by the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶23

In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2015 arising out of First Information Report being Nirsa P.S.Case No.206 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.2601 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad is quashed.

¶24

Cr.M.P. No.2172 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Interim order stands vacated.

¶26

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

SI/

Tarapado Dhiwar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarapado Dhiwar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Vimal Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Sangam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Deptt of Home Prison and Disaster Management

Govind Kutty And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Khurshid Alam Alias Khushid Anwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumitra Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand