Allowed

Nand Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./1849/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings instituted against petitioners for allegedly cheating and forgery regarding land dispute. The court held that since civil remedies were available and specific criminal ingredients were not made out, the criminal case was an abuse of process of the court.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No. 2626 of 2013, are quashed.

Nand Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1849 of 2015

¶3

Nand Kumar Yadav

¶4

Sunita Sinha @ Smt. Sunita Sinha

¶5

Ramesh Chandar Ruj @ Ramesh Ruj

¶6

Lal Muni Singh Yadav

¶7

Maksud Alam

¶8

Prakash Kumar Choudhary @ Prakash Kumar Chodhri

¶9

Subhash Kumar Choudhary @ Subhash Kumar Chodhri

¶10

Dooryadhan Ruj

¶11

…… Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶14

2.Rameshwar Singh …… Opp. Parties

¶15

---------

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶17

---------

¶18

For the Petitioners :Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State :, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate

¶19

04/Dated: 09/08/2023

¶20

Heard Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶21

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No. 2626 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶22

The complaint case has been filed alleging therein complainant and his wife have purchased the land in their names in Maouza Govindpur, Mouza No. 166, Respective Khata No. 206, Plot No. 344, area measuring 85 decimals through registered sale deed.

¶23

It was further alleged that the accused Sunita Sinha also has purchased the land of the same Khata and Plot, area measuring 65 decimals and the scale (measurement) shown is correct.

¶24

It was further alleged that later on the accused Sunita Sinha executed a power of attorney regarding the said land to the accused Ramesh Chandra, Duryodhan and Nand Kumar Yadav. On the basis of which the accused Prakash Kumar Choudhary and others in land connivance with the accused Sunita Sinha to get illegal benefit and to grab the land of the complainant, the accused persons Prakash Kumar

¶25

¶26

Choudhary, Subhash Choudhary, Ramesh Chandra, Nand Kumar Yadav, Kunal Kumar by making conspiracy, made a forged map/ scale (measurement) by increasing the measurement of land to cheat the complainant which does not match with the scale measurement map of Sunita Sinha and misleading the Registrar, Dhanbad, got the land registered.

¶27

It was further alleged that the accused Sunita Sinha, her brother accused Kunal Kumar and power of attorney holder Ramesh Chandra, Duryodhan, Nand Kumar Yadav and Maksud Alam, Lalmuni Singh in Connivance with each other, were fencing boundary wall over the land.

¶28

It was further alleged that then the complainant asked the accused persons not to fence boundary as the accused persons were encroaching and grabbing the land of the complainant, but the accused persons did not stop fencing boundary wall work and the information was given to the P.S. concerned and proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the learned S.D.M., Dhanbad in which the complainant first party and the accused Sunil Kumar, brother of Sunita Sinha was the second party and in the meantime, the accused Sunita Sinha in connivance with the power of attorney holder, Sold the land to accused No. 6, namely, Prakash Kumar Choudhary in connivance with other accused persons, as the accused No. 6 is moneyed man and he lodged case through her brother vide Govindpur P.S. Case No. 260 of 2012 (G.R. No. 2471 of 2012), which is still pending.

¶29

It was further alleged that the S.D.M., Dhanbad observed while disposing the case that the land could be measured by the C.O. and solve the problems and thereafter the complainant applied for measurement and deposited the fee for measurement before C.O., Govindpur.

¶30

It was also alleged that in the meantime, Prakash Kr. Choudhary and Subhash Choudhary purchased the land form accused Sinita Sinha with the help of her brother and power of attorney holders, which is known by the complainant on 17.7.2012 after obtaining the certified copy of the deed.

¶31

It was further alleged that the complainant went to the accused persons and requested them to get the scale/map/measurement rectified, but the accused

¶32

¶33

persons did not listen and threatened the complainant.

¶34

Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 2 is the owner of land in question and the petitioner no. 6 purchased the land from the petitioner no.2, petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 8 are power of attorney holders of the said land and petitioner no. 7 is the brother of the petitioner no. 6. He submits that land in question was purchased by valid registered sale deed dated 07.09.1991 contained in annexure-3. He submits that it is an admitted case of the complainant that Sunita Sinha is rightful owner of the land in question who had purchased the said land on 07.09.1991 from Hitendra Nath Roy. Thereafter, the said Sunita Sinha executed a registered power of attorney dated 09.02.2011 in favour of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Shri Duryodhan Ruz and Shri Nand Kumar Yadav as she being a lady was unable to look after the land in question which was in her peaceful possession. He submits that thereafter the said land was sold to one Prakash Kumar Choudhary by registered sale deed dated 21.04.2012. He submits that since certain disturbance was there a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was also initiated. He submits that Sunita Sinha also filed a petition under Section 87 of C.N.T. Act before the competent court for correction of name in Jamabandi and the same was also allowed by order dated 18.10.2004. He further submits that ingredient of cheating in view of section 415 of I.P.C. is not made out. He further submits that Original Suit No. 270 of 2015 has also been filed by the complainant for cancellation of sale deed against the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no. 6. He submits that for a civil wrong, criminal case has been filed which is against the mandate of law.

¶35

Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to complaint petition, cognizance has been taken.

¶36

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that there is serious allegation of forging the map shown in the subsequent sale deed and in view of that criminality is made out. He submits that if the criminality is there, criminal and civil cases both can go simultaneously.

¶37

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,

¶38

the court has gone through the materials on record including complaint petition as

¶39

¶40

well as order taking cognizance and supplementary affidavit whereby copy of plaint of the suit has been brought on record. It is an admitted case of the complainant that the said land owner is Sunita Sinha and the said Sunita Sinha executed a registered power of attorney dated 09.02.2011 in favour of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Shri Duryodhan Ruz and Shri Nand Kumar Yadav and subsequently, the said land was sold to petitioner no.6 by registered sale deed dated 21.04.2012. The petitioner no. 2 is the owner of land in question and the petitioner no. 6 purchased the land from the petitioner no.2, petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 8 are power of attorney holders of the said land and petitioner no. 7 is the brother of the petitioner no. 6. Looking into the plaint which is arising out of Original Suit, it transpires that Rameshwar Singh-complainant has filed the aforesaid suit for cancellation of said sale deed. It transpires that for a civil wrong, criminal case has been filed. There is no doubt that if the criminality is made out the criminal as well as civil case can go simultaneously but if the criminality is not made out and criminal case is filed that is abuse of process of law.

¶41

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No. 2626 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed.

¶42

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

¶43

It is made clear that so far as pending suit is concerned, that suit will be decided on its own merit without prejudice by this order.

¶44

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶45

Satyarthi/

Nand Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kumar Yadav and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Chandan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sekend Murmu Alias Sikandar Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Devendra Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravi Srivastava Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Harish Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.