Partly allowed

Abhinash Prasad Alias Avinash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2023W.P.(Cr.)/248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a Halka Karamchari charged in a land dispute case, noting he relied on a rectified deed and no cheating intent was alleged, while retaining proceedings against other accused.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 443 of 2018 so far as this petitioner is concerned is quashed.

Abhinash Prasad Alias Avinash Kumar Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 248 of 2023

¶3

Abhinash Prasad @ Avinash Kumar …… Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary and Others …… Respondents

¶5

---------

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Faisal Allam, A.C. to S.C. Mines-III For the Resp. No.4 :Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Advocate 05/Dated: 13/09/2023

¶7

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Faisal Allam, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Shadab Eqbal, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶8

This petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 443 of 2018 including order taking cognizance dated 23.09.2022, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

¶9

The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the respondent no.4, being the complainant has filed one complaint, being Complaint Case No. 443 of 2018, and has made several persons as accused in the matter, of which the name of the petitioner appears as accused no.7, having performed his duties on the post of Halka Karamchari, Sadar, Hazaribag.

¶10

The allegations are in relation to the landed property, having the description as Khata No. 22, Plot No. 64, Village Korrah, P.S. Sadar Korrah, District Hazaribag, having area of 0.83 decimals of land. The allegation is that one Jitendra Singh and Gulam Subhani forcefully entered the landed premises of the complainant, which is walled, and have committed assault upon him, as also they have broken his mobile phone. In all this action, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.5,000/- and his storage of potatoes (100 Kg) was also ruined. Further it has been alleged that one Madhuri Sinha and another Sunil

¶11

¶12

Kumar Sinha have prepared fraudulent documents with the intention of grabbing the land, pertaining to above mentioned description, which belongs to the complainant. It has further been alleged that the land pertaining to the above description was transferred in favour of the predecessor of the complainant, pertaining to Transferred Deed dated 06.05.1946, bearing Registration No. 2290. Further the rent receipts are being created. The land was transferred in the name of Chapla Devi, and subsequent transferred has not been entered into. Further it has been alleged that the accused nos. 2 and 3 have got the land from one Gulam Subhani, in pursuance to the Transferred Deed of the year 1990, bearing Registration Number as 17373, pertaining to Khata No. 91, Village Korrah, Thana No. 156. Further the land was transferred on the basis of agreement registration nos. 1912 and 1914 in the year 1992, in favour of Sunil Kumar Sinha and Madhuri Sinha, by Gulam Subhani. The mutations have been created and have run until 2016-17.

¶13

Further allegation is that in the year 2016, i.e. after a period of 24 years, on the basis of joint efforts of the officers of Registration Department and Land Mafias, one application for correction of Khata No. 91 to 22 was moved and approved by the Registrar, with the intention of grabbing the land, that belongs to the complainant. Further allegation is that on the calibrated efforts of the Registrar, Circle Officer, Circle Inspector and Circle Karamchari along with the Land Mafias, the above act has been concluded. Further the land possession certificate has also been issued in favour of accused nos. 2 and 3 on 01.02.2018, which is absolutely wrong. Further allegation is that the other accused persons threatened the complainant by firing air gun shots and hurling abuses, as also assaulting the complainant. They have made a demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which the complainant was not able to deposit. Further he has stated that in the Police Station, when nothing was being done, the complainant was forced to move before the learned court by filing the present complaint petition

¶14

¶15

and prayer has been made to take cognizance of the above mentioned sections against the accused persons. In the affidavit submitted along with the complaint petition, the complainant has disclosed himself to be resident of District Hazaribag and having given the statement to the best of his knowledge. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is not title holder of the land in question rather one Chapla Devi is title holder. He submits that the said Chapla Devi has not come before the Court and the complainant has filed case on the basis of power of attorney. He submits that allegations are in the complainant petition is that Khata No. 22 which is in the name of Chapla Devi has been changed to Khata No. 91 in the name of Sunil Kumar Sinha. He submits however the documents brought on record clearly suggest that the District Sub-Registrar has rectified the deed dated 29.02.1992 whereby correction of khata number has been made as Khata No. 91 in place of Khata No.22. He submits that the petitioner is a Halka Karamchari and on the basis of rectified deed, the receipt was issued in the name of Sunil Kumar Sinha as disclosing the Khata No. 91. He submits that the petitioner looking in the said submitted report and in view of that the petitioner has got no role to mislead the registrar. He submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the proceeding against the District SubRegistrar in Cr.M.P. No. 3886 of 2022 by order dated 02.02.2023. He submits that if the case of the Registrar is allowed, the case of the petitioner is on better footing. He submits that there is no averment in the entire complaint case about the intention of cheating from the very beginning. On these grounds, he submits that so far as this petitioner is concerned, he may be exonerated and entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. Shadab Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that Registrar is immune in view of Section 86 of the Indian Registration Act and in that view of the matter said order has been

¶17

¶18

passed. The said order is not helping the petitioner. He refers to the rent receipt contained in Annexure-11 of supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and submits that Khata No. 22 is there and on the basis of wrong submission of report by this petitioner, Registrar has rectified the deed. He submits that no interference is required by this Court.

¶19

Mr. Faisal Allam, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that learned Court has rightly taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶20

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of complaint petition as well as order taking cognizance including the documents brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit and order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3886 of 2022 dated 02.02.2023. In the complaint petition it is an admitted case that Khata No. 22 has been changed to Khata No. 91 in favour of Sunil Kumar Sinha. The rectification deed has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit which is dated 20.10.2016 and by the said rectification deed Khata No. 22 was corrected as Khata No. 91 by the District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh. The document at page 11 is rent receipt showing Khata No. 22 and it is dated 28.03.2014 wherein rectification deed is of the year, 2016 and the rent receipt dated 07.07.2016 contained in page 23 of the supplementary affidavit is in the name of Sunil Kumar Sinha wherein Khata number has been disclosed as 91. Thus, it appears that in the year, 2014 Khata number was not changed and after rectification deed only Khata number has been changed. Para 17 of the present petition suggests only about the Khata No. 91 in view of rectified deed by the District Sub-Registrar. It appears from the documents available on record that the petitioner has not made any wrong with regard to Khata number as he has only submitted report on the basis of rectified deed dated 20.10.2016.

¶21

¶22

Further a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the proceeding with regard to District Sub-Registrar by order dated 02.02.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 3886 of 2022.

¶23

In view of above facts the case of the petitioner is on better footing. He has only submitted report on the basis of rectified deed. There is no averment with regard to intention of cheating from the very beginning.

¶24

In view of above facts, entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 443 of 2018 including order taking cognizance dated 23.09.2022, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, so far this petitioner is concerned, are quashed.

¶25

It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the complaint petition as well as order taking cognizance so far other accused persons are concerned. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶26

This petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

¶27

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶28

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶29

Satyarthi/

Abhinash Prasad Alias Avinash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinash Prasad Alias Avinash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary

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

Shakti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Neeraj Verma Alias Neeraj Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Prasana Kessop Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand

Shukdev Kumar Alias Morich Kuli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Tulsyan Vs the State of Jharkhand