Allowed

Avijit Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition invoking Section 482 CrPC. The Court quashed criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery against the petitioner, holding their continuation to be an abuse of the process of court due to lack of evidence against key accused and the civil nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Bistupur P.S. Case No.148 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1711 of 2016 so far as it relates to the petitioner Avijit Ghosh only.

Avijit Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.770 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.770 of 2019

¶3

------

¶4

Avijit Ghosh, Age 45 years, S/o Prof. Ajit Kumar Ghosh R/o SE/9 Shusobhita Apartment, Kilburn Colony, Hinoo, P.O. P.S. Doranda, Ranchi- 834002 … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Appu Gope, S/o Krishna Gope R/o Village – Dhatkidih, P.O. Asanbani, P.S. Jadugora, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mohammad Ashgar, 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 Cr.M.P. 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 proceeding arising out of C/1 Case No.2378 of 2015 corresponding to Bistupur P.S. Case No.148 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1711 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant/opposite party No.2 filed C/1 Case No.2378 of 2015 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur alleging therein that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, got the property purchased on behalf of his company- the accused No.2 namely M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited. The petitioner being the Senior Manager of M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited, by virtue of

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.770 of 2019

¶17

the sale-deed in which the accused No.4 of the complaint namely Bishwanath Das was the identifier- cum- witness No.1 and the accused No.5 of the complaint namely Krishna Hansda was the witness No.2 of the said sale-deed, got the property purchased by his company. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur forwarded the complaint to the officer In-charge of Bistupur Police Station, with the direction for institution of the F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.. Consequent upon which Bistupur P.S. Case No.148 of 2016 was registered inter alia for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation of the case, submitted charge-sheet and did not send up the co-accused Smt. Kalibala Das who executed the sale-deed and the identifying witness of the sale-deed namely Bishwanath Das for trial and mentioned that the allegation against the other witnesses of the sale-deed namely Krishna Hansda has remained unverified and only sent up the petitioner for trial for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

After submission of the charge-sheet, the petitioner filed I.A. No.11945 of 2022 in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, with a prayer for incorporating the additional prayer of quashing the cognizance order dated 05.09.2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the said offences against the petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2023.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner left M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited on and from 31.05.2010 and at the time of filing the Cr.M.P., he was the Chief Managing Director of Heavy

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.770 of 2019

¶22

Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi. It is next submitted that the police never issued any notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C to the petitioner. It is next submitted that even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true still the petitioner is not the maker of the alleged forged documents and there is nothing in the record to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner had any prior knowledge that the said Kalibala Das who executed the sale-deed, is not the owner of the land in question. It is next submitted that under such circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of court. It is then submitted that as police after investigation found that the evidence against the co-accused Kalibala Das and Bishwanath Das are not sufficient which is evident from the charge-sheet submitted in this case kept with the I.A. No.11945 of 2022, hence, there is no way the petitioner could have been implicated in this case by taking the aid of Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as no one except the petitioner has been sent up for trial.

¶23

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance. It is next submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State that the petitioner being a constituted authority of M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited, got the land mentioned in the sale-deed, transferred in favour of M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited through a person who was not the owner of the land. It is next submitted that the real owner of the land is the informant namely Appu Gope who is the grandson of Smt. Lalmoni Bagalin @ Kamali Gope and the vendor of the saledeed namely Kalibala Das misrepresented herself as the daughter of Smt.

¶24

¶25

Cr. M.P. No.770 of 2019

¶26

Lalmoni Bagalin @ Kamali Gope and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Senior General Manager, did not verify the actual ownership of the land and got the land registered having the knowledge of fake ownership of the land. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid the consideration amount of the land of Rs.4,73,550/- through cheque issued from the account of M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited. Hence, it is submitted that this petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that criminal courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or for pressurizing the parties to settle civil disputes as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 para-8 of which reads as under:-

¶28

“8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶29

Now, coming to the facts of the case it is evident from the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. that the police did not find adequate evidence against the vendor of the sale-deed namely Kalibala Das to proceed against her. Similarly, the police did not find any sufficient

¶30

¶31

Cr. M.P. No.770 of 2019

¶32

material to proceed against Bishwanath Das- the identifying witness of the said sale-deed. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was aware about the grandmother of the complainant namely Smt. Lalmoni Bagalin @ Kamali Gope being alive on the date of execution of the sale-deed. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was in-charge of the affairs of the company or any way responsible for the acts of the company in the name and style of M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited. There is no allegation against the petitioner of any cheating to anybody or dishonestly inducing anybody for delivery of property nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of making any false documents and admittedly the petitioner was not the author of the sale-deed. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of court.

¶33

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Bistupur P.S. Case No.148 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1711 of 2016 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the petitioner- Avijit Ghosh only.

¶34

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

¶35

In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim order dated 20.02.2023 stands vacated.

¶36

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶37

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21^st March, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶38

Avijit Ghosh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avijit Ghosh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rakshit Kumar Alias Rachit Kumar Alias Rakshith Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mehrun Nisha Vs Union of India through the General Manager Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

Louis Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwath Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary

Anu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Parwej Khan Alias Parwej Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand