IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANT BIJAY SINGH, J.
Pankaj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 1189 of 2016
Decided on : 30-07-2018
Forgery - Criminal Revision - Section 239 Cr.P.C - Indian Penal Code, sections 420, 467, 427
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from a complaint alleging fraudulent disposal of property through forged documents. The petitioners, as purchasers of the property, filed a petition under section 239 of the Cr.P.C, which was rejected. The criminal revision against this rejection was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' argument, based on their status as bona fide purchasers and the absence of evidence against them, did not warrant the quashing of the charges. The court affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge, dismissing the criminal revision application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' claim as bona fide purchasers, the absence of evidence against them, and the applicability of section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the initial stage of framing a charge, the focus is on establishing a strong suspicion of the accused's guilt, not on proving the guilt itself. The court also highlighted the need for caution in quashing criminal proceedings and the limited scope of interference at this stage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application and affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge, with no order as to costs.
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous application has been preferred by the four petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 04.03.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2014, passed by the learned Session Judge, Deoghar, whereby and whererunder the order dated 10.10.2014 rejecting the petition of the petitioners filed under section 239 Cr.P.C, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar passed in connection with petition filed by the petitioners under section 239 Cr.P.C (arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 394 of 2006 dated 02.12.2006 under sections 420, 467, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. No. 1069 of 2006 has been affirmed.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the instant case has arisen on the basis of a petition filed by the complainant being Complaint Case No. 826 of 2006 which was referred to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and subsequently, Deoghar P.S. Case No. 394 of 2006 dated 02.12.2006, under sections 420, 467, 427, has been registered alleging inter alia that one M/s Dhandhaniya Brothers Pvt. Ltd, Company acquired two storied building No. 170, Ward No. 2, Plot No. 698 at Jasidih, Deoghar in the year, 1957 through a registered sale deed from its rightful legal owners. The said properly known as ‘Dhandhaniya Kothi’.
It is further alleged that complainant/informant, an authorized agent of the company came to know from local people and newspapers that some miscreants in collusion with local influential persons and administrative officers are making attempt to fraudulently dispose of the above property and a representation was submitted to the Government authorities and notices were also published in the local newspapers. Later on the informant/O.P. No. 2 came to know that a portion of property has been sold to ten purchasers through registered sale deeds on the basis of no objection certificate issued by Circle Officer, Jasidih, Deoghar and on enquiry, it was further revealed that the vendors and vendee conspired amongst themselves and with some unknown persons to chit and dishonestly induce delivery of property of informant, committed mischief by causing damage to the property by making false and forged document. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been lodged.
3. It appears that police after investigation submitted final form being Final Form No. 90 of 2011 under section 407, 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein on 02.03.2011. Thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar under order dated 21.04.2011 took cognizance under section 420, 467, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar for trial and disposal.
4. It appears that during trial a petition has been filed under section 239 of the Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioners in the Court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar who under order dated 10.10.2014 has rejected the petition preferred under sections 239 of the Cr.P.C thereafter the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2014 was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2014 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar who by a detailed order rejected the criminal revision application and affirmed the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to criminal miscellaneous application has submitted :
“11. That the petitioners humbly submit that the petitioners are purchasers of land by power of Attorney Holder, namely, Raj Kishore Chodhary, who got the said power of attorney from the adopted son of late Hemedra Sekhar Rai and Usha Rani Rai namely, Sandeep Kumar Rai.
12, That the petitioners humbly submit that for the same cause of action one Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 150 of 2006 for cancellation of sale deeds is also pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Deoghar between the petitioners an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.