Sukulmoni Baskey Alias Sukulmani Baskey Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1252 of 2022

¶3

Sukulmoni Baskey @ Sukulmani Baskey, aged about 43 years, wife of Gurbha Baskey

¶4

Gurbha Baskey, son of late Kali Charan Baskey, aged about 50 years Both are residents of village- Dilahara, P.O.- Kutusole, P.O. and P.S.- Baharagora, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶5

Smt. Digi Soren, aged about 53 years, wife of Bhotesh Soren

¶6

Bhotesh Soren, aged about 60 years, son of Late Chanu Soren Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are residents of village- Dereng, P.O.- Kanas, P.S.- Dhalbhumgarh, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand …... Petitioners Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Ram das Tudu, son of Late Man Singh Tudu, resident of village- Bangarkala, P.O. & P.S.- Dhalbhumgarh, Dist.East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ..... Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Adv. For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.PP For the opp. Party no. 2 : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Adv.

¶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 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case no. 143 of 2019 including the order taking cognizance dated 13.02.2020 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken by learned JMFC, Ghatshila of the offence punishable only under Section 420 of IPC.

¶14

1

¶15

Cr.M.P. No. 1252 of 2022

¶16

The brief facts of the case is that the allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 being married daughters of their father, had no right of inheritance over the property of their father, as per customary law, but still they executed two sale deeds, in favour of their minor daughter and minor son in respect of the property of their father, the ownership of which, has been claimed by the complainant. There is also allegation that for execution of such sale deeds, the petitioners have obtained permission under Section 46 of the CNT Act form the LRDC Ghatsila, vide Misc. Case no. 250 of 2010-11 and Misc. Case no. 251 of 2010-11, both the orders having been passed on 03.08.2010 , based on false declarations made therein. Learned Magistrate after considering the complaint, the statement on Solemn Affirmation of the complainant, the statement of the enquiry witnesses found prima facie case, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC and ordered for issuance of summons.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and in fact, the civil suit vide Original Suit no. 4 of 2019 was filed in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ghatsila on 27.02.2019, prior to filing of this Complaint. It is further submitted that undisputedly the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are the daughters of the owner of the property and as they have every right, title and interest to transfer the same to the vendees by the sale deed, hence, no offence is made out.

¶18

Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 27.06.2023 passed in CrMP 1221 of 2022 , learned counsel for the petitioners submits that therein this court has observed in para 8 and 10, which reads as under:-

¶19

“8. Now, so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence is as follows:(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission,

¶20

(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by

¶21

2

¶22

Cr.M.P. No. 1252 of 2022

¶23

any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and

¶24

(iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property

¶25

as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.

¶26

10. It is a settled principle of law as has observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is a tendency to use the proceedings before the criminal court to settle scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. The dispute between the parties is at best, purely a civil dispute of specific performance of contract but even the period of contract undisputedly been expired but the opposite party No.2 or his father has not filed any suit for specific performance of contract. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court and this is a fit case where in the interest of justice, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.53 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih be quashed and set aside.”

¶27

and submits that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.02.2020 in connection with Complaint Case no. 143 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.

¶28

Learned Addl.. PP and learned counsel for the opp. Party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have cheated the complainant by claiming themselves, having been inherited the property of their father, hence, offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is made out as, as per Santhal customary law, the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 being the married daughters, have no right of inheritance of their father’s property, hence, they have committed the offence of cheating. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶29

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no allegation against the petitioners of fraudulent and dishonest inducement to the complainant to either deliver any property or consent to retention thereof, by any

¶30

3

¶31

Cr.M.P. No. 1252 of 2022

¶32

person or to intentionally induced the complainant to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not deceived by the petitioners and there is no allegation against the petitioners of even deceiving the complainant. In fact, this is a case where the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are claiming to be the lawful owner of the property. Whether or not, under a customary law, which is obviously not a statutory law, they are debarred from inheritance is a purely dispute of civil nature.

¶33

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the essential ingredients of the deception of the complainant since the inception of the transaction between the parties or dishonest inducement to him to part with any property etc. is not made out. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.02.2020 in connection with Complaint Case no. 143 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.02.2020 in connection with Complaint Case no. 143 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.

¶35

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶36

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 3^rd July, 2024 Smita /AFR

¶37

4

¶38

Cr.M.P. No. 1252 of 2022

Sukulmoni Baskey Alias Sukulmani Baskey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukulmoni Baskey Alias Sukulmani Baskey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Kumar Cold Storage through Its Proprietor Subhas Kumar Vs National Horticulture Board through Its Managing Director

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaushik Das Vs the Union of India

Akhileshwar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikander Saw Alias Sikandar Kumar Saw Alias Suraj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Salauddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand