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

2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1143

B.B.MANGALMURTI
Deo Kumar Paswan @ Deo Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s Binod Kumar Dubey, Nawin Kumar, Arvind Prajapati
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.C. Sinha

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of quashing criminal proceedings where a civil dispute over property and sale transactions is involved?

What is the test to determine whether a document or transaction constitutes a forgery under Sections 467 and 471 IPC in the context of family-land disputes?

What are the circumstances under which criminal cognizance should be quashed in cases where the civil nature of the dispute is apparent and documents are not attached to the complaint?


ORDER :

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.4.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The short fact as would appear from the complaint petition is that complainant Raghu Nandan Singh (Paswan) son of late Basudeo Singh filed a complaint case against accused-petitioners which was registered as Complaint Case No. 201 of 2009 in which it was alleged that complainant and accused nos. 1 and 2 as well as witness no. 1 are members of same ancestral family. A land under Khata No. 41, Plot No. 104, area 30 acres, 50 decimals under Mouza-Godwali, P.S. Hunterganj was recorded in the name of the complainant at the time of his father and accordingly Government rent-receipts were also being issued. During the lifetime of the father of the complainant he before the village Punches partitioned his moveable and immoveable properties between the four brothers and all were coming into possession of their respective shares of land. These facts were also accepted by accused no. 1 in his sale deed no. 4028 dated 11





















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top