Quashed

Ahli Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./1915/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed criminal proceeding under Section 420 IPC against petitioner accused in land mutation fraud case. Held no offence made out as no inducement found for cheating; forgery not supported despite allegation. Continued trial deemed gross abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding and impugned summoning order quashed so far as petitioner is concerned.

Ahli Devi Vs State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1915 of 2018

¶3

Ahli Devi .... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Badrinath Prajapati . .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. F. Allam, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

¶8

03/ 05.01.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

1. The summoning order dated 19.01.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, J.M. 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case being C.P. Case No.297 of 2017 whereby and whereunder learned court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC, is under-challenge in the instant Cr. M. P.

¶10

2. Petitioner was made as accused no.3 by the complainant / Opp. Party No.2.

¶11

3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that petitioner in collusion with the Circle Officer and Halka Karmchari illegally mutated the name of her mother and got the revenue receipts issued in her name.

¶12

4. It is further case of the complainant that the land measuring an area of 1 Acre 44 Decimals having Khata No.29 was recorded in the name of mother of the complainant and accordingly, revenue receipts were being issued in her name. After death of her parents, in order to grab the land, it is alleged that petitioner /accused no.3, got the sale-deeds executed in favour of her mother for 72 decimals of land, but she had never come in possession of the same. Earlier application of the petitioner for mutation was rejected in Mutation Case Nos.1112 of 2011-12 and 1113 of 2011-12 and the order was affirmed vide Appeal No.04 of 2013.

¶13

5. The main grievance of the complainant is that the order of mutation has been illegally procured by the petitioner in collusion with the other accused persons.

¶14

6. During enquiry, the statement of the complainant and two enquiry witnesses were recorded, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed wherein the summoning order has been issued only against the accused/petitioner while the case has been dropped so far other rest two other co-accused persons, namely, Circle Officer and Halka Karmchari are concerned.

¶15

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to make out an offence of cheating, there should be an inducement resulting in wrongful loss to the aggrieved persons and mere filing of an application for mutation will not make out an offence of cheating particularly where no offence is found to be

¶16

¶17

made out against the officer(s) who was responsible for passing the mutation order.

¶18

8. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 defends the impugned order. It is submitted that the mutation order has been passed by submitting forged Genealogical table by the petitioner. Furthermore, earlier the application filed for mutation had been rejected and had attained finality.

¶19

9. Having considered submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides it is apparent that in the complaint petition it has been admitted that land in question sold by the mother of the complainant in favour of the mother of the petitioner, by registered sale deed. Possession subsequent to sale has been denied. There is presumption in favour of due execution of registered sale deed and further, possession follows title.

¶20

10. Assuming the assertions made in the entire complaint to be true, this Court is of the view that no offence under Section 420 IPC will be made out. In the present case, the complainant does not dispute that at any point of time any inducement was made by the petitioner to the complainant. What has been asserted is that mutation order was obtained by presenting forged genealogy table. However, the allegation of forgery has not been supported and cognizance has not been taken for offence of forgery. Mere submission of mutation application before competent authority and getting favourable order shall not amount to cheating.

¶21

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner, and it will be a gross abuse to permit the continuation of the criminal proceeding.

¶22

Under the circumstances, the entire criminal proceeding including the impugned order is quashed so far the petitioner above-named is concerned.

¶23

Sandeep/

¶24

Uploaded.

Ahli Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahli Devi v. State of Jharkhand

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

Keshav Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Chandan Bhar Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Ministry of H R D

Shishir Gupta Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Ministry of H R D

Ruda Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mokkaram Alias Mokkaram Mohamad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Leny Smart Alias Leonard Smart Alias L Smart Vs the State of Jharkhand