Sk Khaliquzzaman And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

¶1

(2025:JHHC:18205)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.188 of 2017

¶3

------

¶4

Deleted

¶5

Sk. Rafiquzzamn, son of Sk. Abdul Hamid, Resident of Road No.5, House No.34, P.O. and P.S. Azadnagar, Town- Jamshedpur, DistrictEast Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Zeent Kausar, wife of Arshad Ali, by faith Muslim resident of B- Block, No.32, Line No.8, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, … District Sighbhum Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioners : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated

¶14

calls.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Azadnagar P.S. Case No.143 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3461 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences

¶16

¶17

Cr. M.P. No.188 of 2017

¶18

(2025:JHHC:18205)

¶19

punishable under Sections 420/323 of the Indian Penal Code but the numeral 323 has wrongly been printed as 432 in the amended Cr.M.P.

¶20

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.2 is the owner of a land. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Sk. Khaliquzzaman has manufactured an agreement purported to have been executed by Govind Gorai in favour of him by forging the signature of Govind Gorai and also forging the signature of the notary public namely Sri A. K. Sen, who expired, before the agreement was purportedly notarised by him and put iron gate over the land. The undisputed fact remains that the co-accused Sk. Khaliquzzaman died during the pendency of this Cr.M.P. on 16.08.2020.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Zeba Praveen @ Zeba Parveen vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025:JHHC:11425 and submits that in the facts of that case as there was no allegation of dishonest inducement of the complainant by the petitioner of that case or anyone else, this Court held that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Govind Prasad Kejriwal vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2020) 16 SCC 714 paragraph-6.3 of which reads as under:-

¶23

“ 6.3 . Even none of the ingredients of Section 323 IPC, are satisfied. Therefore, even considering the allegations in the complaint as they are, to continue the criminal proceedings against the accused even for the offence under Section 323 shall be an abuse of process of the court and the law. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 CrPC, and to quash the impugned criminal proceedings.”

¶24

¶25

Cr. M.P. No.188 of 2017

¶26

(2025:JHHC:18205)

¶27

And submits that in the facts of that case as none of the ingredients of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

¶28

It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner No.2 of deceiving any person or fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation of causing any hurt to the complainant or anyone else by the petitioner No.2. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out.

¶29

It is next submitted that as neither of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance, is made out against the petitioner No.2, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner No.2 are considered to be true, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶30

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P.

¶31

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:-

¶32

(a) Deceit i.e. dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation and

¶33

(b) Inducing the person so deceived to part with any property

¶34

as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

¶35

Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3

¶36

3 Cr. M.P. No.188 of 2017

¶37

(2025:JHHC:18205)

¶38

SCC 641 as also in the case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay reported in AIR 1957 SC 857 .

¶39

Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner No.2 of fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the complainant or any other person by deceiving them. In the absence of this essential ingredient, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner No.2 are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶40

So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner No.2 of causing any hurt to the complainant. Therefore, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner No.2 are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner No.2.

¶41

In view of the discussions made above, as neither of the offences, in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance against the petitioner No.2, is made out against the petitioner No.2 even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner No.2 namely Sk. Rafiquzzamn will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Azadnagar P.S. Case No.143 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3461 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2019 against petitioner No.2 namely Sk. Rafiquzzamn be quashed and set aside.

¶42

¶43

Cr. M.P. No.188 of 2017

¶44

(2025:JHHC:18205)

¶45

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Azadnagar P.S. Case No.143 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3461 of 2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2019 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner No.2 namely Sk. Rafiquzzamn.

¶46

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶47

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶48

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08^th of July, 2025 AFR/ Animesh

¶49

¶50

Cr. M.P. No.188 of 2017

Sk Khaliquzzaman And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk Khaliquzzaman 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

Gurumukh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhash Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vipin Kumar Yadav Alias Bipin Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Apurba Kumar Roy And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand