Allowed

Dr Devendra Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./918/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner claimed the matter was civil in nature arising from a land sale agreement dispute where a pending money suit already existed for recovery of amounts. The High Court held that filing a criminal case for a civil wrong constituted abuse of pr

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2017 and the framing of charge order dated 13.04.2017, under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC in Bariyatu P.S. Case No.

Dr Devendra Bhagat Vs The State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2017

¶3

Dr. Devendra Bhagat ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Smt. Swati Jaiswal ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate. : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms Sonal Sodhani, Advocate.

¶4

¶5

12/ 09.08.2023 Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel appearing for the State and Ms Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

¶6

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 87 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1383 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi. Subsequently, the framing of charge was also allowed to be challenged by order dated 16.09.2019, as such the same is also under challenge.

¶7

Initially the complaint case was lodged, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police for registering the FIR and for investigation.

¶8

Mr. Chandra submits that in the entire Complaint case / FIR (Annexure-1) by the Opposite Party No-2 herein against the petitioner from the facts and circumstances with supporting documents enclosed herewith it would be evident that the ingredients/ definitions of the Section 406/420 and 506 of the IPC does not attract at all to be proceeded against the petitioner, because the entire matter/dispute relates to/ arising out of the AGREEMENT dated- 02-05-2015 executed in between the petitioner and the opposite party no-2 herein for the purpose of sale of the land of the petitioner to the Opposite Party No-2 and the said Complaint Case/FIR which is purely CIVIL MATTER and the Complaint/FIR has only been lodged by the Opposite Party No-2 herein with malafide purpose to pressurize the petitioner in the grab of the false Criminal Case for personal illegal gain as well as for satisfying the personal grudge.

¶9

-2-

¶10

Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing doctor and he has entered into an agreement for sell of his land on 02.05.2015 with the O.P. No. 2. He submits that in view of clause-8 of the said agreement, the specific time was fixed as 31.10.2015 for depositing the rest of the amount and to register the sale deed. He further submits that in terms of the agreement, the full and final payment has not been made to the petitioner that’s why, legal notice was issued to the O.P. No. 2, which is contained in Annexure-3 to the petition for cancellation of the said agreement. He further submits that without giving any reply to the said legal notice, the present case has been filed, which was later on converted into FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 2284 of 2014 and in view of the order dated 27.09.2016, passed in the said A.B.A., a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- was handed over to the O.P. No. 2 and pursuant to that the anticipatory bail was allowed in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the O.P. No. 2 is disputing of not returning a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- as the version of the O.P. No. 2 is that Rs. 50,00,000/- has been paid to the petitioner. He also submits that for recovery of that amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-, the Money Suit No. 279 of 2017 has already been filed by the O.P. No. 2, which is still pending before the competent civil court at Ranchi. On these grounds, he submits that unnecessarily, the present case has been lodged.

¶11

On the other hand, Ms Sonal Sodhani, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the remaining amount i.e Rs. 16,00,000/- has not been paid by the petitioner as yet. She submits that if the criminality is made out, both civil and criminal cases can go simultaneously and filing of the money suit has got no effect.

¶12

Mr. Dey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the money suit is already filed for recovery of the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- and above.

¶13

In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the matter is arising out of an agreement and the said agreement is available on record. Clause-8 of the said agreement suggests that 31.10.2015 was the last date fixed for depositing the rest of the amount and to register the sale deed, however, the O.P. No. 2 has not complied that clause for that legal notice has already been issued, which is contained in Annexure-3 to the petition and

¶14

-3-

¶15

in spite of replying the same by the O.P. No. 2, the present case has been lodged against the petitioner. Petitioner has moved before this Court in A.B.A. No. 2284 of 2014 and in view of the order dated 27.09.2016 passed in the said A.B.A., a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- by way of cheque was handed over to the O.P. No. 2 and pursuant to that the anticipatory bail was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Further the O.P. No. 2 has already filed a money suit for recovery of Rs. 16,00,000/- and above from the petitioner, which is still pending.

¶16

In view of the above fact, it appears that to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of law, as for recovery of disputed amount, the money suit has already been filed and the case is civil in nature for that the present case has been filed. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 with regard to criminality, is not made out, as the case is arising out of an agreement and clause-8 of that agreement was not fulfilled by the O.P. No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2 and for recovery of disputed amount, the money suit is already filed, thus, no criminality is made out and for a civil wrong, the criminal case has been filed, which is against the mandate of law.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner as well as framing of charge order dated 13.04.2017, in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 87 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1383 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that the money suit shall be decided on its own merit without being prejudice by this order.

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

Amitesh/-

Dr Devendra Bhagat v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Devendra Bhagat 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

Statutes considered

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

Nand Kumar Yadav and Ors. 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.