Quashed

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./156/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings for cheating and the related revisional order. Holding that the existence of a pending civil suit for specific performance of the same agreement indicated the criminal case was malicious, the Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.10.2013 and order dated 16.12.2014 in Criminal Revision No. 37/2014 are quashed.

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. 156 of 2015

¶3

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo ….…… Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand & Others.

¶5

……Opp. Parties

¶6

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

---------

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Chaubey, Advocate

¶9

08/Dated: 21/08/2023

¶10

Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Manoj Chaubey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.10.2013 in connection with Complaint No. 1702 of 2012 and also for quashing the order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 37/2014 whereby the criminal revision has been rejected upholding the order dated 01.10.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1702 of 2012 passed by the learned C.J.M. at Ranchi whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 406, 420 of the I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶12

The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the Opposite Party No.2 is retired senior citizen from C.C.L. and the petitioner is the owner of land pertaining to Khata No. 100, Plot No. 1435, Village Tarup, P.S. Ratu, Ranchi. The petitioner intended to sale 26 decimals of land and the Opposite Party No.2 agreed to purchase the same. Then the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioner agreed upon for sale of land at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per decimals and on that day of 06.07.2012 an agreement was executed, and an advance amount. of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Three Lacs fifty Thousand) only paid to the petitioner and remaining Rs. 2,22,000/- to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Out of Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by the Opposite Party No.2 himself, Rs. 1 Lac paid by the Opposite Party No.2's elder son namely Sudhanshu Shekhar Choubey and rest of the amount Rs. 1 Lac was paid by the younger son of Opposite Party No.2 namely Chandra Shekhar Choubey to the

¶13

¶14

petitioner. And after execution of the agreement Opposite Party No.2 repeatedly request to the petitioner to execute the sale deed of the said land and after repeated request by the Opposite Party No.2., the petitioner did not execute the register sale deed in favour to the Opposite Party No.2 then Opposite Party No.2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 25.07.2012 through his lawyer namely A.N. Sahay, Advocate by registered post, in which requested that within 15 days from the receipt of notice for execution of sale deed of the said land but after receipt of the notice also the petitioner did not execute the sale deed in favour to the Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 met with the petitioner on 03.09.2012 for nonexecution of registered sale deed in favour to the Opposite party No.2 then on terms of the agreement return the full amount with interest to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 got assured that he has been deceived, the agreement has been executed and Rs. 3,50,000/- (Three lacs fifty thousand) only has been taken, and neither given the land nor returned the money to the Opposite Party No.2. by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid averments the complaint case has been filed against the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint petition on 12.09.2012 against the petitioner and subsequently, he was examined on 03.10.2012 on Solemn Affirmation and two enquiry witnesses were examined pursuant to that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. by order dated 01.10.2013. He submits that the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Revisional Court which was rejected by order dated 16.12.2014. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 has already filed Title Suit No. 404 of 2012 for specific performance of execution of sale deed which was subsequently converted in O.S. No. 493/2019 which is still pending. He submits that title suit was filed on 03.09.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on 03.10.2012. He submits that from the very beginning case of cheating is not made out however, the learned court has taken cognizance and the revisional court has rejected the said petition only on the ground that the revisional court is having limited jurisdiction to find out the only

¶16

¶17

error. He submits that if injustice is done the present petition can be maintained as held by several judgments of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. He relied in the case of “ Hari Prasad Singhania V. State of Jharkhand & Another” 2004

¶18

(2) JCR 105 (Jhr). He further relied in the case of “R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 . He refers to para 15 of the said judgment which is quoted here-in-below:-

¶19

“15 . Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

¶20

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

¶21

(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

¶22

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

¶23

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground

¶24

to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. “

¶25

On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may

¶26

be quashed.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that intention of cheating was there from the very beginning that is why the said agreement was not executed by way of registering sale deed in favour of the O.P. No.2. He submits that learned court has rightly taken cognizance and there is also no illegality in the revisional court order. He submits that after rejection of criminal revision 482 petition is not maintainable.

¶28

Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned revisional court considering the judgment of the learned court has been pleased to upheld the same by revisional order. She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

¶29

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of complaint as well as order taking cognizance and finds that admittedly there was an agreement between the O.P. No.2 and the

¶30

¶31

petitioner for transfer of certain land for that advance has been made by the O.P. No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. It appears that subsequently, some dispute arose between the parties. If the contract is there the said can be implemented by way of filing the suit for specific performance and in the case in hand admittedly, the O.P. No.2 has filed Title Suit No. 404 of 2012 for specific performance of execution of sale deed which was subsequently converted in O.S. No. 493/2019 which is still pending. The title suit was filed on 03.09.2012 and the present complaint has been filed lateron 03.10.2012 which suggests that this complaint was afterthought against the petitioner. Merely a breach of contract cannot be a subject matter of the criminal case. It is well settled that if criminality is made out the criminal and civil proceeding both can go simultaneously and if criminality is not made out and in a case of civil nature, criminality cannot be allowed to be proceeded. However, in the case in hand pursuant to an agreement all dispute arose for that O.P. No. has already filed title suit under the Specific Performance Act which suggests that for that the present complaint has been filed maliciously only.

¶32

It is further well settled that once the revisonal court has applied its mind and dismissed the revision petition in the garb of 482 Cr.P.C. second revision is not maintainable and if at the same time injustice is done the Court can exercise its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is not in dispute. If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. However, in the case in hand the Court finds that filing of the suit for specific performance clearly suggests that for civil case, the criminal case has been filed. Now-a-days, a tendency has developed in business circle to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of lenders/creditors. Such tendency is seen in several family dispute also leading to irretrievable brake down of marriages/families. Reference may be made to the case of “ Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India and Others” (2006) 6 SCC 736 .

¶33

The Court finds that the learned revisional court has not appreciated

¶34

¶35

this aspect of the matter and he has not discussed about the pendency of the title suit filed by the O.P. No.2 and to allow to continue the criminal proceeding will amount abuse of process of law.

¶36

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 01.10.2013 in connection with Complaint No. 1702 of 2012 and order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 37/2014 are quashed.

¶37

This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands

¶38

disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶39

It is made clear that title suit pending before the learned court shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudice by this order.

¶40

Satyarthi/

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Keshi Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nayab Alam And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dr Suman Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Nath Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Iltush Ahamad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Rajendra Prasad Sharma Alias Rajendra Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.