Allowed¶9

Shyam Bihari Choudhary And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2024Cr.M.P./175/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr.M.P. No. 175 of 2017, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., decided 05/12.06.2024. Quashing of criminal proceeding and cognizance order dated 22.09.2016 (P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016, SDJM Madhupur); civil dispute given criminal colour; Sections 406/420/467/34 IPC; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; final form accepted 21.01.2015; protest petition; Title Suit No.111/2013 compromised by order dated 08.04.2021; Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 relied on; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed and disposed of; entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 in P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016 quashed. ¶9

Shyam Bihari Choudhary And Anr. Vs The State Of… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed and disposed of; entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 in P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016 quashed.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016 ought to be quashed, the dispute being essentially civil in nature.

¶2

Court's answer

The criminal case was filed in respect of what is crystal clear to be a civil dispute between the parties.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The compromise of Title Suit No.111 of 2013 (order dated 08.04.2021, Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit), and the facts that petitioner no.2 is the purchaser and petitioner no.1 is the signatory, strengthen the petitioners' case.

¶7

Key takeaways

The petitioners' case is strengthened in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751.ratio¶7
The entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, is quashed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 in P.C.R. Case No.33/2015 (T.R. No.2623/2016), pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur — quashed. Dispute over agreement to sell property (Plot No.755) held to be essentially civil: police final form describing the matter as civil had been accepted on 21.01.2015; cognizance was taken on a protest-cum-complaint petition under Sections 406 and 420 IPC; the subject-matter Title Suit No.111 of 2013 stood compromised vide order dated 08.04.2021; petitioner no.2 was the purchaser and petitioner no.1 the signatory. Reliance placed on Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751. Petition allowed and disposed of (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 175 of 2017

¶2

Shyam Bihari Choudhary

¶3

Smt. Babita Agrawal … Petitioners

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Ravindra Nath Mallicck … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sachin Mahato, Advocate

¶9

05/12.06.2024 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary along with Mr. Abhishek Kumar

¶10

Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sachin Mahato, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶11

The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur.

¶12

P.C.R. Case No.236/2013 was registered by the opposite party no.2 against Smt. Shandhya Rani Seal, Pradip Kumar Seal and Mrs. Shikha Mukherjee, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Madhupur Police Station and as such Madhupur P.S. Case No.233/2014 corresponding to G.R. No.436/2014 was registered on 07.06.2014 under sections 406/420/467/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused persons are owner of Plot No.755, Holding No.597/11 (old), 109 (new), Ward No.11 (old), 20 (new) and area 4 bighas 10 kathas and they

¶13

-1- Cr.M.P. No. 175 of 2017

¶14

agreed to sale out the aforesaid property with the complainant and Shyam Bihari Choudhary for which an agreement was executed on 24.01.2011, thereafter Shyam Bihari Choudhary withdraw his agreement upon which fresh memorandum was executed between the complainant along with R.S. Dwary on 03.04.2012. It was further alleged that Rs.30,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to R.S. Dwary through cheques and as per the fresh memorandum of understanding, earlier Rs.15,00,000/- received by the accused was to be refunded by Shyam Bihar Choudhari. It was also alleged that despite the complainant was ready to pay the balance Rs.6,00,000/-, they did not execute sale deed in their favour rather the property was sold to Smt. Babita Agrawal. It was alleged that the accused persons had cheated the complainant and Ravi Shankar Dwari of amount of Rs.45,00,000/-.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said case was investigated by the police and final form was submitted stating therein that the dispute is civil in nature. He submits that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate accepted the said final form on 21.01.2015 and, thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed the present protest cum complaint petition being P.C.R. Case No.33/2015 on 21.01.2015 and vide order dated 22.09.2016, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that there was an agreement for sale between Sandhya Rani Seal, Pradip Kumar Seal and Shikha Mukherjee with Shyam Bihar Choudhary and Ravindra Nath Mallick with regard to sale of the land in question on 24.01.2011. Subsequently,

¶16

-2- Cr.M.P. No. 175 of 2017

¶17

Shyam Bihari Choudhary withdrew from the said agreement and, thereafter, there was another memorandum of understanding between Shandhya Rani Seal, Pradip Kumar Seal, Shikha Mukherjee, M/s R.S. Dwary (HUF) and Ravindra Nath Mallick, who is the complainant-opposite party no.2. He submits that for the dispute in question, Title Suit No.111/2013 was filed by R.S. Dwary (HUF) and Ravindra Nath Mallick (opposite party no.2) before the learned Subordinate Judge, Deoghar against Smt. Shandhya Rani Seal, Pradip Kumar Seal, Shikha Mukherjee and Babita Agrawal. He further submits that petitioner no.2 is the purchaser of the land in question and petitioner no.1 is the signatory. He draws attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit and submits that the said suit was compromised between the parties and the order dated 08.04.2021 passed in the said Title Suit No.111 of 2013 is brought on record in Annexure-3 of the supplementary affidavit. He submits that no criminality is made out, however, learned Court on the protest petition, has been pleased to take cognizance.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State submits that on the protest petition, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance, however, final form was submitted saying that the dispute is civil in nature.

¶19

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 looking into the order dated 08.04.2021, contained in Annexure-3 of supplement affidavit submits that compromise is there.

¶20

In view of the above, it is crystal clear that for the civil dispute, criminal case has been filed. Title Suit No.111 of 2013 was also filed, which

¶21

-3- Cr.M.P. No. 175 of 2017

¶22

was compromised later on in light of the order dated 08.04.2021, contained in Annexure-3 of supplementary affidavit. Further, petitioner no.2 is the purchaser and petitioner no.1 is the signatory. In view of these facts, the case of the petitioners further strengthens in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another , reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 .

¶23

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.09.2016 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.33/2015, T.R. No.2623/2016, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur are, hereby, quashed.

¶24

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Ajay/

¶27

-4- Cr.M.P. No. 175 of 2017

Shyam Bihari Choudhary And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bihari Choudhary And Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ratan Kumar Patwa Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Kripal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhi Nath Ram And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Chandan Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.