Allowed

Biras Muni Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Nov 2024Cr.M.P./790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. The court held that no elements of cheating or fraudulent misrepresentation were alleged, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 03.02.2023 arising from Complaint Case no. 5386 of 2019, is quashed and set aside.

Biras Muni Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 790 of 2023

¶2

Biras Muni Kumari, aged about 65 years, wife of Bhagwan Prasad Gupta, resident of Shankar Bhojan Bhandar, RIMS Chowk, Post Office and Police Station-Bariatu, Dist.- Ranchi

¶3

...... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Smt. Sonmati Shukla, aged about 63 years old, wife of Sri Brejeshwer Shukla, resident of 106, Sheo Ishwari Enclave, Harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, P.O. & P.SBariatu, Dist.- Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Haider Ali, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Adv.

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶11

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi arising out of Complaint Case no. 5386 of 2019 by which learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC inter alia against the petitioner.

¶12

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has occupied the land belonging to the complainant and has constructed house thereon. Civil suit no. OS case no. 173 of 2017 is pending in the court of learned Munsif-XII, between the parties. On the basis of the complaint, statement on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, learned JMFC, Ranchi

¶13

¶14

Cr.M.P. No. 790 of 2023

¶15

found the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC inter alia against the petitioner.

¶16

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana and Another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therein in the facts of that case, it was held that even if the complaint taken on its face value, there was no material to proceed against the accused, hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceeding.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 1531, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that when a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration as in the facts of that case, none of the offences for which, the cognizance has been taken, was made out, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the order of cognizance.

¶18

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of cheating or dishonestly inducing the informant to part with any property and even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶19

Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2, the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner has committed cheating and has by way of cheating, deprived the complainant in his enjoyment of

¶20

¶21

Cr.M.P. No. 790 of 2023

¶22

property, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶23

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 the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC is as under :-

¶24

(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.

¶25

(ii) (a) The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.

¶26

(ii) (b) The person so induced to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived.

¶27

(iii) In case covered by the second part of clause (ii), the act or omission should be one which caused or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, min, reputation or property, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and Another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716.

¶28

So, it is crystal clear that the two essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are that

¶29

(a) the deceit, that is to say, the dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation

¶30

(b) inducing the person, so deceived to part with properties, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 .

¶31

Now coming to the facts of the case there is no allegation against the petitioner of any dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person deceived to part with the property.

¶32

Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner,

¶33

¶34

Cr.M.P. No. 790 of 2023

¶35

hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case, where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi arising out of Complaint Case no. 5386 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.

¶36

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Ranchi arising out of Complaint Case no. 5386 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.

¶37

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶38

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶39

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 19^th November, 2024 Smita /AFR

¶40

¶41

Cr.M.P. No. 790 of 2023

Biras Muni Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biras Muni Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Legal Services Authority Ranchi

Raju Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagpal Singh Vs Budhni Devi and Ors.

Ali Imam And Ors. Vs Sk.Kasim And Ors.

Harshan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Bimal Vs the State of Jharkhand