Roshan Lal Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.398 of 2025

------

Roshan Lal Gupta, aged about 53 years, son of Sri Jai Narayan Gupta, resident of House No.3442, Vijaya Heritage, 6^th /7^th Phase, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, District-East Singhbhum.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Amal Kumar Das, son of Late Chutu Das, resident of 39/Manjhi Para, Bara Gamharia, P.O.-Gamharia, P.S.-Adityapur, DistrictSeraikella Kharsawan.

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate ------

¶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 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.790 of 2023, including the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.398 of 2025

¶17

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

¶18

the offences punishable under sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the property from the co-accused Mahmood Alam by a registered sale deed and got his name mutated; whereas the complainant is claiming that the property belongs to him.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, and submits that in para-20 & 23, it has been categorically stated 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 alleged that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration, but a thirdparty who is not the purchaser under the deed, is not entitled to make such complaint.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of cheating or dishonestly inducing anyone to part with any money or property, hence, in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Sections 418 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the absence of any allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner or dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property against the

¶23

¶24

Cr. M.P. No.398 of 2025

¶25

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

¶26

petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that similarly, in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of any criminal conspiracy, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

¶27

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the materials available in the record is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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, this Court finds that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has purchased the property from its rightful owner as claimed by the coaccused Mahmood Alam. There is no allegation of any impersonation either against the vendor of the petitioner or the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has cheated or dishonestly induced to part with any property.

¶29

¶30

Cr. M.P. No.398 of 2025

¶31

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

¶32

Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 418 & 420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶33

So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 are as follows:-

¶34

(i)There must be an entrustment; and

¶35

(ii) there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction or of legal contract.

¶36

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

¶37

case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. C.B.I. reported in ( 2003) 3 SCC 641 .

¶38

Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of being entrusted with any property nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of committing any dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property. In absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed, that is, the offences punishable under sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, is made out. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal

¶39

¶40

Cr. M.P. No.398 of 2025

¶41

( 2025:JHHC:36280 )

¶42

proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.790 of 2023 including the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶43

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.790 of 2023 including the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶44