SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Jhk) 118

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
Avijit Ghosh and another – Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another – Respondents
W.P (Cr.) No.336 of 2009
Decided on : 30.1.10.

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Indrajit Sinha
For the State : Mr.R.N.Roy, G.P.III
For the Respondent no.2: Mr.Mahavir Praad Sinha

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 464, 470 and 420—petitioner is purchaser from co-accused through power of attorney holder—co-accused never alleged to have sold the land claiming that he is authorized by someone else nor he claimed himself to be someone else—petitioner cannot claim to have been committed offence of forgery in connivance with other accused—no case that any of the accused persons tried to deceive him not they offer him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property and co-accused never pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deed—no case of cheating—alleged that petitioner have stated the complainant to vacate the land, otherwise they would have to face dire consequence—such statement have no element of insult which provoke breach of peace—no offence under Section 504 IPC made out—appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

This writ application is directed against the order dated 1.8.2009 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Rev. No.60 of 2008 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st Bokaro after holding that sufficient material is there to constitute offences under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 472, 420, 504 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons set aside the order dated 16.6.2008 whereunder complaint case no.291 of 2008 had been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Consequently the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter for further enquiry. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case as has been made out in the complaint petition needs to be recorded which are as follows: A Plot No.371, measuring an area of 89 acres 40 decimals, appertaining to Khata no.22 situated at village- Giridhartand, P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro was subjected to partition among the five co-sharers by virtue of a decree of the court under which one of the co-sharers Rameshwar Ojha came in possession of the land measuring 10 acres 32 decimals.

In course of time, Rameshwar Ojha sold the said land to one Dhiru Koda grand-father of the complainant Shankar Modi @ Shankar Koda whose name was recorded in the revenue records and the rent was being paid to the State. After the death of Dhiru Koda, his descendants came in possession over the land, bearing plot no.371, measuring 10 acre 32 decimal.

Further case is that on 11.5.2008 the accused Amit Kumar came along with accused Avijit Ghose (petitioner), who happens to be a General Manager, M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited and told to the complainant that entire land measuring 89 acre 40 decimal has been sold to M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited by the accused no.2 Amar Nath Jha through the holder of his power of Attorney Amit Kumar, accused no.3 and as such accused no.3 Amit Kumar and this petitioner (accused no.4) directed the complainant to vacate the land and held out a threat of dire consequence if he does not vacate the land.

Thereupon the complainant obtained certified copy of the sale deed under which 89 acre 40 decimal of land had been transferred by Amar Nath Jha by impersonating himself as Manoj Jha through the holder of the power of Attorney Amit Kumar for a consideration of Rs.1,22,36,400/- on the basis of the rent receipts and land possession certificate, though neither the land possession certificate nor the rent receipts had been issued in favour of Manoj Jha. It has been alleged that accused no.2 Amar Nath Jha by impersonating himself as Manoj Jha by forging documents in connivance with other accused including the petitioner sold the property, though he had no title over the property and as such, committed offence under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 472, 420, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

On filing the said complaint, it was registered as C.P. case no.291 of 2008 which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 16.6.2008 holding therein that none of the offence as alleged in the complaint is made out. However, that order was challenged by the complainant before the revisional court which was registered as Cr. Rev.No.60 of 2008. The said case was allowed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro after holding that sufficient material is there to constitute offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the matter was remanded back to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro for further enquiry. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that M/s. Jindal Steel Power Limited a leading company of the country in the steel and power sector has been allowed to set up a power plant and also a steel plant by the State Government, for which it has been granted a lease deed in respect of coal mines and also iron ore mines but b






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top