High Court quashed FIR and order taking cognizance regarding alleged illegal land purchase by company agents during a pending civil suit. Bench held criminal charges misplaced as civil dispute covered by Supreme Court precedents.
Quashed FIR and order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2015 in connection with G.R. No.168 of 2014.
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
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
Ravi Srivastava … Petitioner
-Versus-
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Kumar Vimal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
05/09.08.2023 Both the petitions are being heard together as common FIR as well as
order taking cognizance are under challenge in both the petitions.
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
With
aunt Smt. Andi Bej @ Das and maternal uncle Mansa Ram Bej and other cosharers. It was further alleged that according to the informant, he is the descendant of Nadia Bej who lied behind him, his son namely, Mansharam Bej (accused no.1) and two married daughters namely Amodi Bej @ Das and Moni Bej @ Moral as his legal heirs and successors. The informant and Bijay Moral are the sons of Moni Moral who has already died. It was also alleged that the present petitioners are representatives of M/s Usha Martin Ltd., managed to bring into existence a Registered Sale Deed No.796 dated 26.02.2013 in respect of aforesaid joint family property knowing it fully that the Title (Partition) Suit No.46 of 2011 is pending against accused no.1 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I at Seraikella. Hence the aforesaid sale deed is void and illegal. On 10.12.2013, the present petitioners gave out to the complainant that they have purchased the land and openly threatened to dispossess the complainant. The complainant issued lawyer's notice and it was alleged that the said lawyer's notice has been received by the petitioners on 07.12.2013, but did not reply. Therefore, the FIR was lodged.
3
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
With
in the petitioners' company as show accused no.2 in the complaint petition. He further submits that the petitioners have only acted on behalf of the company and the land was purchased for the said company. He submits that the allegation is against accused no.1 as he sold the land in question to the company and the petitioners herein are only the purchased on behalf of the company. He also submits that Title (Partition) Suit No.46 of 2011 was pending between the informant and accused no.1, which has also been disclosed in the complaint petition. He submits that in this background, the case has been unnecessarily lodged against the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the FIR may kindly be quashed.
4
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
With
alleged that the sale deed is void, illegal and hit under the principle of lispendance. It appears that the present case has been filed on the ground that the sale deed is void and illegal, that can be a subject matter of civil dispute and that cannot be ground for filing FIR. Further, the petitioners are only employees of the said company and they have purchased the said land on behalf of the company. The case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar; [(2009) 8 SCC 751] .
[(2021) 14 SCC 626] and in view of the dispute which is identical in that case, the case has been quashed. Paragraph 27 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
“27. In Mohd. Ibrahim [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929] , this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 757-60, paras 19-24 & 27-30)
“19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
5
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
A clarification
‘ 24. “ Dishonestly ”.—Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.’
(i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property (Sections 206, 421 and 424).
(ii) Fraudulent claim to property to prevent
6
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
seizure (Section 207). (iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (Sections 208 and 210).
(iv) Fraudulent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin (Sections 239, 240, 242 and 243).
(v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (Sections 246 to 253).
(vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (Sections 255 to 261).
(vii) Fraudulent use of false instrument/weight/measure (Sections 264 to 266). (viii) Cheating (Sections 415 to 420).
(ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to creditors (Section 422).
(x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration (Section 423).
(xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (Sections 463 to 471 and 474).
(xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security, etc. (Section 477).
(xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (Section 496).
It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law. Section 504 of the Penal Code
Conclusion
7
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2015
Cr.M.P. No. 2467 of 2015
With
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR and order taking cognizance alleging illegal purchase of land during a pending civil suit should be quashed.
Whether allegations regarding void sale deed and lis pendens constitute an offence eve under Sections 420, 467, 471, and 504 IPC.
Whether the petitioners, acting as company representatives, are liable when the dispute is essentially civil in nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of BiharFollowed¶39
[(2009) 8 SCC 751] · Who else cites this
Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersFollowed¶40
[(2021) 14 SCC 626] · Who else cites this
Ravi Srivastava
Nishikant Mohanty
The State of Jharkhand
Ajit Moral
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
