Rohit Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:15923]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.371 of 2019

------

Rohit Kumar Rajak, aged about 33 years, son of Krishna Rajak, resident of Moti Street, Ratu Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Fagan Tigga, wife of Late Ramdayal Oraon, resident of village Dibdih, Nayatoli, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P. ------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2018 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.293 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.7001 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioner.

¶15

The brief fact of the case is that the informant lodged a written report claiming that on the basis of forged documents, the vendor of the petitioner namely Mani Narayan Chaudhary, claiming to be the owner of the disputed land has executed a power of attorney in favour of Ajay Kumar Gupta. Ajay

¶16

1 Cr. M.P. No.371 of 2019

¶17

[2025:JHHC:15923]

¶18

Kumar Gupta executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Doranda P.S. Case No.293 of 2016 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, police found the allegations regarding commission of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code to be true. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 30.05.2018.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, paragraph-17 of which reads as under:-

¶20

“17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.”

¶21

and submits that at best the allegation against the petitioner is that even

¶22

though the vendor of the petitioner namely Mani Narayan Choudhary is not the owner of the land but claiming to be the owner of the land, he has executed a sale-deed, by virtue of the power of attorney, in favour of the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no allegation that Mani Narayan Choudhary is the person, who has executed the power of attorney, in favour of Ajay Kumar Gupta and it is not in dispute that Ajay Kumar Gupta claiming to be the power of attorney holder had executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the offence of forgery is not made out. It is then submitted that the charge-sheet submitted in this case is bereft of the particulars and

¶23

¶24

Cr. M.P. No.371 of 2019

¶25

[2025:JHHC:15923]

¶26

details as required under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rikhab Birani & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 . Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶27

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that since police after investigation of the case found the allegations against the petitioner are true. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.293 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.7001 of 2016. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶28

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 as has been held in para-17 in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra) that if a person, who is not owner of the land claims to be the owner of the land and executes a sale-deed, then, he can be prosecuted only by the person in favour of whom such sale-deed is executed and not by any other person. If a person, while executing a sale-deed, is impersonating himself as someone else, then, such a person can be prosecuted for the offence of forgery which arises from creation of false document by anyone.

¶29

Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner is a purchaser of the sale-deed executed by Mani Narayan Choudhary through his power of

¶30

3 Cr. M.P. No.371 of 2019

¶31

[2025:JHHC:15923]

¶32

attorney Ajay Kumar Gupta. There is no dispute that Mani Narayan Choudhary has executed the power of attorney in favour of Ajay Kumar Gupta. There is no dispute that Ajay Kumar Gupta himself has executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, in capacity of the power of attorney holder of Mani Narayan Choudhary.

¶33

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 none of the offence in respect of which charge-sheet has been submitted or cognizance has been taken, as already indicated above, is made out. Hence, continuation of this criminal prosecution 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 30.05.2018 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.293 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.7001 of 2016 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶34

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2018 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.293 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.7001 of 2016 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶35

In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 06.03.2025 is vacated.

¶36

Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶38

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16^th of June, 2025 AFR/ Saroj

¶39

¶40

Cr. M.P. No.371 of 2019

Rohit Kumar Rajak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Rajak v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Sufal Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pashupat Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jailal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

K K Gangopadhyay Alias Krishna Kamal Gangopadhyay Alias Krishna Kumar Gangopadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Prasad Alias Mahendra Prasad Barnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Kiran Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand