Md Zainul Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Aripit Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

¶16

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2016 passed in connection with Case No. C-68 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

¶17

The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the accused persons had given offer to the complainant for purchasing a land of an area 2.5 decimals under Khata No. 15, Plot No. 1191, Mouza Vindomoh Thana No. 103 and District Koderma. Thereafter the accused persons had sold the said land to the complainant on 18.07.2012 against a consideration amount of Rs. 55,000/-.

¶18

It has been further stated that registration of the land, the complainant had applied for mutation of the said land but he came to know that the land in question which has been sold to him is not in existence and the Plot No. 1191 of Khata No. 15 is registered in the name of one Ganpat Dusadh and there is no such plot No. 1191

¶19

2

¶20

under Khata No. 15. It has also been alleged that the plot No. 1191 belongs to Khata No. 65, which is Government land. It has further been alleged that when the complainant got knowledge about this fact, contacted the accused persons and demanded his money back upon that the accused persons abused and assaulted him. Thereafter the present complaint has been lodged.

¶21

Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of complaint petition filed by the O.P. No2, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. He submits that entire proceeding is civil in nature inspite of that criminal complaint has been filed. He submits that the land in question which is mentioned in the complaint petition has been sold by the petitioners by registered sale deed dated 18.07.2012 wherein description of the land has been disclosed contained as Annexure-2. He submits that the said land was subject matter in Title Suit No. 17 of 1996 and by judgment and decree dated 29.08.1998 the said suit has been decreed in favour of the father of the petitioner no.2. He further submits that the said judgement and decree was challenged before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Koderma which was dismissed by order dated 25.06.2002. He further submits that only mutation was not done in favour of the O.P. No.2 pursuant to that present complaint case has been filed against the petitioners.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears

¶23

that title suit is there.

¶24

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that the mutation was not done in favour of the O.P. No.2 in view of that

¶25

3

¶26

case is made out. He further submits that Khata No.15 does not belong to petitioners.

¶27

It is an admitted position that the said land was subject matter of Title Suit No. 17 of 1996 and by judgment and decree dated 29.08.1998 contained in Annexure-3 it was decreed in favour of father of petitioner no.2. In the said judgment dated 29.08.1998 passed in Title Suit No. 17 of 1996 the plot nos. 1039, 1226, 1111, 1191, 1194 and 1234 and khata no. 65 as well as khata no. 15 has been mentioned and in that view of the matter the argument of the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 is negated. The said order was challenged before the appellate court and the appellate court has dismissed the same by judgment dated 25.06.2002. The land in question was transferred to the O.P. No.2 by registered sale deed dated 18.07.2012 and all these facts suggest that if any dispute is there, that is civil in nature for that criminal case as been filed. Only because the mutation was not done in favour of the complainant, that cannot be a subject matter of the criminal case and that can be agitated by filing appropriate petition before the revenue authority for the mutation of the land in question. Reference may be made to the case of “Gulam Mustafa

¶28

V. State of Karnataka and Another” 2023 SCC Online SC 603

¶29

(para-36).

¶30

In view of above and considering that for a civil wrong if any, criminal case has been filed which cannot be subject matter of criminal proceeding, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2016 passed in connection with Case No. C-68 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, are quashed.

¶31

4

¶32

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

¶33

any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶34

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶35

Satyarthi/-

Md Zainul Khan And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Zainul Khan And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance and Anr.

Jyotish Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smriti Choudhary Madhogarhia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Shanker Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Ajay Kumar Gupta And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rote Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Harjit Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.