Allowed

Tapas Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Apr 2024Cr.M.P./255/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance orders in two complaint cases alleging cheating and fraud in sale of inherited land. The Court held the dispute was civil in nature, a suit for cancellation of sale deeds was already pending, and continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process. Both proceedings and cognizance orders were quashed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tapas Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.255 of 2020

¶2

Tapas Chatterjee 2. Satyajit Kundu …… Petitioners

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Prasita Bose

…… Opp. Parties

With

Cr.M.P. No.308 of 2020

¶9

Tapas Chatterjee 2. Satyajit Kundu …… Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶12

2.Prasita Bose

¶13

…… Opp. Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. (in Cr.M.P. No. 255/2020) Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P. (in Cr.M.P. No. 308 of 2020) For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate

¶16

07/Dated: 08/04/2024

¶17

In both the petitions common question of law and facts are involved that is why both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties

¶18

Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State in respective case and Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 in both the cases.

¶19

In Cr.M.P. 255 of 2020 prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2019 arising out of Complainant Case No. 96 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial

¶20

¶21

Magistrate, Ist Class at Ghatshila.

¶22

Complaint Case No. 96 of 2019 has been filed alleging therein that that the father of the complainant has purchased the land on 14.05.1993 bearing sale deed no. 413 from the rightful owner Sandhya Rani Chatterjee situated at Mauza Bikrampur, Thana no. 111, under Khata No. 30, in plot no. 38 and 39 having total area of 0.12 acre described in Schedule A of the complaint petition. After death of her parents complainant inherited the said land. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that the land which she inherited has been sold by fraud and cheating by petitioner no. 1 with connivance with other accused including petitioner no.

¶23

It is further alleged that the land has been sold to Basanti Hansda on 24.12.2018 in Mauza Bikrampur, Thana no. 111, Khata No. 30 in plot no. 39 measuring area of 3.08 decimals and portion of plot no. 38 measuring area of 1.92 decimals, total area of 5.00 decimals by petitioner no.1.

¶24

In Cr.M.P. 308 of 2020 prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 03.12.2019 arising out of Complainant Case No. 97 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ghatshila.

¶25

Complaint Case No. 97 of 2019 has been filed alleging therein that the father of the complainant has purchased the land on 14.05.1993 by way of registered sale deed from the rightful owner Sandhya Rani Chatterjee situated at Mauza Bikrampur, Thana no. 111, under Khata No. 30, in plot no. 38 and 39 having total area of 0.12 acre described in Schedule A of the complaint petition. After death of her parents complainant inherited the said land. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that the land which she inherited has been sold by fraud and cheating by petitioner no. 1 with connivance with other accused including petitioner no.

¶26

It is also alleged that the land has been sold to Durgi Tudu in Mauza

¶27

¶28

Bikrampur, Thana no. 111, Khata No. 30 in plot no. 38 measuring area of 6.08 decimals by petitioner no.1

¶29

Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, appearing for the petitioners in both the cases submits that land dispute is there in Cr.M.P. No. 255 of 2020 with regard to 5 decimals of land situated in Thana no. 111, Khata No. 30, plot no. 39. He submits that land dispute is there in Cr.M.P. No. 308 of 2020 with regard to 7 decimals of land situated in Thana no. 111, Khata No. 30, plot no. 38. He further submits that the petitioners have filed case against the complainant being C-1 Case No. 104/2019 with regard to dispute of the plot. By way of referring solemn affirmation of the complainant he submits that complainant has accepted that mutation was not applied and the mutation is still in the name of the mother of the petitioners. He submits that on query by the Court the complainant has also disclosed that no step has been taken for cancellation of deed by the complainant. He further submits that however later on complainant has filed Original Suit No. 07/2020 with regard to subject matter of both the Cr.M.Ps in which issue has been framed and the parties have appeared. He submits that in view of that case is civil in nature for that criminal proceeding has been initiated. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶30

Learned counsels for the State submit that the case is arising out of complaint case.

¶31

Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the allegation of cheating is there. He submits that the land is in still in possession of the complainant. He submits that complainant has filed original suit for cancellation of deed.

¶32

It is an admitted position that for dispute with regard to 5 decimals of land situated in Thana no. 111, Khata No. 30, plot no. 39, Cr.M.P. No. 255 of 2020 has been filed and dispute with regard to 7 decimals of land situated in Thana no. 111, Khata No. 30, plot no. 38, Cr.M.P. No. 308 of 2020 has been filed. 3

¶33

Both the lands are arising out of same khata number and Thana Number executed by two different persons. In the solemn affirmation the complainant has admitted that she has not applied for mutation however she claimed that she is still in possession of the land. The petitioners happened to be executant of the father of the complainant. The mutation is still in the name of the mother of these petitioners. Thus, it is crystal clear that if any dispute is there with regard to possession of the land for that cancellation of both the sale deeds Original Suit has been filed by the complainant before the competent court of civil jurisdiction which suggests that for civil wrong if any, criminal colour has been given which amounts to abuse of process of law. If criminality is not made out and the case is civil in nature, to allow the proceeding to continue will amount the abuse of process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2019 arising out of Complainant Case No. 96 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ghatshila and entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 03.12.2019 arising out of Complainant Case No. 97 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Ghatshila are quashed.

¶35

Both the petitions are allowed and disposed of. Interim order passed in respective cases is vacated. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶36

It is made clear that pending suit before the competent court will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudice to this order as these petitions have been disposed of considering the criminality and parameters of section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶38

Satyarthi/

¶39

Tapas Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tapas Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandeshwar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Hasnain Ansari Alias Hasnain Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kailash Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand