Quashed

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 May 2023Cr.M.P./1703/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court held that since the complainant received the transaction amount, no criminality was made out despite the subsequent revocation of the power of attorney.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 09.07.2012 in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1 2203 of 2011, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ja

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2012

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma ….… Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Sadanand Sharma

¶7

…… Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

---------

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Saurav Kumar, A.C. to Mr. A.K. Das,

¶11

05/Dated: 11/05/2023

¶12

Heard Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

¶13

The present petition has been filed quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 09.07.2012 in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1 2203 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

¶14

The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein previously the complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner for landed property situated at Mango for sale as well as for look into the land. It was further alleged that the accused had made an agreement of sale with parties and taken Rs. 1.5 lacs and Rs. 1.20 lac and had not given money to the O.P. No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was provided power of attorney for sale of land of the O.P. No.2 and after making arrangement he has taken Rs. 1.5 lac and 1.20 lac and has handed over the said money to the O.P. No.2 for which receipts have been brought on record by way of Annexure 3 and 3/1 of the petition. He submits that thereafter the said land was

¶15

again sold by the O.P. No.2 to another person. He submits that the power of attorney was revoked on 15.06.2010 whereas O.P. No.2 has received money on

¶16

¶17

08.05.2010. He submits that a title suit was filed for the land in question thereafter the complaint case has been filed which is abuse of process of law.

¶18

On the other hand Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that title suit has already been dismissed. He submits that the property was sold that is why criminality is made out.

¶19

Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court after looking into solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses has taken cognizance.

¶20

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the dispute is arising out of contract for sale of land belonging to the O.P. no.2. Annexure 3 and 3/1 are the documents which suggest that O.P. No. 2 has received amount of transaction for the land in question. Further the said land was sold by the O.P. No. 2 to another person which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in course of argument. This amount was paid on 08.05.2010 whereas the power of attorney was cancelled on 15.06.2010 which suggests that maliciously power of attorney has been revoked after receiving the amount.

¶21

In that view of the matter the case of cheating is not made out and section 406 of I.P.C. is also not made out as the amount has been received which is not denied by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in view of Annexure 3 and 3/1.

¶22

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 09.07.2012 in connection with Complaint Case No. C/1 2203 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is quashed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Satyarthi/

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Manorma Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Mahendra Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jafir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police

Chhatru Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Baldin Ram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.