Quashed

Bibhash Chandra Panjiara Alias Vibhash Panjiara v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./637/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery arising from a land sale dispute, the Court found the issue to be a civil dispute. The Court held that continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.63 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1029 of 2017, including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2019, is quashed and set aside

Bibhash Chandra Panjiara Alias Vibhash Panjiara Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.637 of 2021

¶3

------

¶4

Bibhash Chandra Panjiara @ Vibhash Panjiara, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Chunni Lal Panjiara, resident of Qr. No.-3157, Sector-IV/G, P.O. & P.S.- Sector IV, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand)

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Ajay Kumar, son of Sri Jhari Nayak, Director, Malti Residency Infra Project Pvt. Limited, Murtitand, P.O.- Chas, P.S.- Chas (M), … District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahabir Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate ------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.63 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1029 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro whereby and where under the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has sold some land in excess to the land he has purchased. Hence, it is alleged that he has committed forgery. Police after investigation of the case has submitted chargesheet inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2021

¶17

punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 504, 37 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case only against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 504, 37 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute. The petitioner has not sold any land to the informant. The purchasers of the land of the petitioner have no grievance against the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner of impersonating as somebody else in executing sale-deeds. It is next submitted that the petitioner was the bonafide owner of the land in question in respect of which he has executed sale-deeds, on the date of execution of the sale deed. Hence, no forgery has been committed by the petitioner. Similarly, there is no allegation against the petitioner of cheating anybody and the allegation of criminal intimidation is not against the petitioner rather it is against the accused persons as mentioned in paragraph-10 of the written report on the basis of which the F.I.R. of the case has been registered. It is next submitted that the informant is a builder and has used muscle-men to pressurize the land owners to sell their land and when the co-accused refused to sell the plot, they were threatened and harassed including foisting of this false case against them and the petitioner. It is further submitted that the informant has adopted these tactics to obstruct the road of the adjoining land owners and despite the order of the Circle Officer in Encroachment Case No.01/2015-16, the encroachment has not been removed. It is next submitted that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No.64 of 2014 for specific performance before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-1^st , Bokaro which is pending for adjudication and the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged as a counter-blast to the earlier Civil Suit for wrecking

¶19

¶20

Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2021

¶21

vengeance. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any illegality. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.63 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1029 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro, be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.63 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1029 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that since the petitioner has committed the offence and charge-sheet has been submitted against him, hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly found sufficient materials to find the prima facie case for the offences punishable in law for which cognizance has been taken. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶23

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having cheated the informant and the persons whom the informant claims to have been cheated by the petitioner, have no grievance against the petitioner. There is no allegation of deceiving any person by the petitioner or fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person so deceived to deliver any property. Hence, the offence of cheating is not made out against the petitioner.

¶24

So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that to constitute the said offence the essential ingredients are that:-

¶25

¶26

Cr. M.P. No.637 of 2021

¶27

(1) the accused committed forgery;

¶28

(2) he did so by preparation of forged documents or illegally according to the manner provided under Section 463 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

Perusal of the record reveals that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he executed sale-deed in excess of the land purchased by him to some persons but not the informant. The persons to whom the land in excess of his entitlement has allegedly been sold by the petitioner, have no grievance against the petitioner. There is no allegation of any impersonation against the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the bonafide owner of the land in respect of which he has executed the sale-deed. So, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely a civil dispute and a Civil Suit is also filed by the petitioner prior to institution of this case.

¶30

Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where in the interest of justice, the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.63 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1029 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Bokaro, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chas (M) P.S. Case No.63 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1029 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-

¶32

1^st Class, Bokaro, as prayed for by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.

¶33

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶34

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶35

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09^th of August, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶36

Bibhash Chandra Panjiara Alias Vibhash Panjiara v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bibhash Chandra Panjiara Alias Vibhash Panjiara v. the 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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Manager Vs Podina Devi

Mina Devi Vs Suman Kumar Singh

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar Ram

Maheshwar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badal Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand