Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.
Prabha Sinha, wife of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Sinha & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. - Opp.Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 100 of 2016
Decided On : 28-02-2019
For the Petitioner:A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Pankaj Kumar, APP, Niyati Sah
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420 and 406 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 190 – Quash – Allegation - Complaint transpires that complainant has stated that land described in complaint petition was allotted to share of his grandfather late in Partition Suit - That during his life time Late partitioned property amongst his four children his who is arrayed as an accused in instant complaint case and his three daughters namely late mother of - Late died in year – Held, On perusal impugned order and allegation made in complaint and statement of complainant on solemn affirmation it is evident that complainant has alleged that land belonging to mother of complainant was sold by his mama accused - There is no material on record neither is it alleged that petitioners had knowledge that land was allotted in share mother of complainant or that vendor accused were not owners or title holder of land which was sold to petitioner - It is apparent that in answer to court question complainant has admitted that there was no documentary evidence with respect to title of landing name of his mother - It is admitted by complainant that petitioners had paid as consideration amount to his mama and manioc accused for purchase of land - In such situation petitioners are victims for simple reason that fit is held that vendors did not have right title and interest to land then in that casino valid title will pass to purchasers because it is well settled principle transferor cannot transfer better title than he has to transferee - Exposited facts indicate that in either situation petitioners are victims - In fact ingredients to constitute offences Section Indian Penal Code is not made out against these petitioners - Counsel has relied on decision rendered in case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others - State of Bihar & Another reads as This Court has time and again drawn attention to growing tendency of complainants attempting to give cloak of criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature obviously either to apply pressure on accused or out of enmity towards accused or to subject accused to harassment - Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes - Foregoing reasons and discussion exercise in futility and an abuse process of court and law – Consequently of taking cognizance and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case pending in court below as against these petitioners is here by quashed made above in considered opinion of this court continuation criminal proceeding against these petitioners will only be an - Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. In the instant application, the petitioners pray for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 1438 of 2014, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
2. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and on going through the averment made in Complaint Case No. 1438 of 2014, it transpires that O.P. No. 2, i.e., the complainant has stated that the land, described in the complaint petition, was allotted to the share of his grand-father (late Bajrang Bihari Lal) in Partition Suit no. 98 of 1945. That during his life time, Late Bajrang Bihari Lal, partitioned the property amongst his four children i.e., his son, Sanat Kumar Lal, who is arrayed as an accused No.1 in the instant complaint case, and his three daughters namely, late Sifalika Prasad, late Swarn Rekha Lakhiyar (mother of O.P No.2) and Smt. Jyotsna Srivastava. Late Bajrang Bihari Lal died in the year 1980. In the complaint, reference has been made to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act of 1956, and it is stated that the mother of the complainant (O.P. no.2) was allotted a share in the said land. It is stated that on 09.05.2012, O.P. No.2 suffered brain haemorrhage and was admitted to hospital for treatment and his mother was attending and taking care of him. It is alleged that during the said period, his mama (maternal uncle) (accused no.1) i.e., Sanat Kumar Lal and his mami (maternal aunt), Prabha Sinha (co-accused) vide registered sale deed no. 6422/5609 dated 09.05.2012, transferred the land to the petitioners, i.e., accused no. 2 and 3 for a consideration amount of Rs.12,60,500/-. On being discharged from the hospital, when he returned home, his cousin mama and mami informed him that Sanat Kumar Lal and Prabha Sinha have sold the land, comprising the share of land belonging to his mother, to the petitioners. It is alleged that he approached the petitioners to return the land but they threatened and abused him. That he met his mama and mami and asked them to return the share of land belonging to his mother but they did not pay any heed. Thereafter, he approached the police authorities but they did not take any action, rather said that since the dispute was regarding the sale of land, therefore, he should approach the competent court. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged.
3. On perusal of the order dated 02.09.2015, it is evident that the court, on perusal of the complaint, and on the basis of the statement of O.P. No.2, has held that a prima facie case under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against all the four accused person.
4. Learned senior counsel has submitted that from the averments made in the complaint, and the statement of O.P. no.2 recorded on solemn affirmation, it would be evident, that there is no allegation that the petitioners had cheated the complainant-O.P. No.2 or had committed the criminal breach of trust or misappropriated any money. That in fact petitioner no.1 is a bonafide purchaser, and being the husband of petitioner no.2, signed as a witness identifying the vendor and vendee, of the sale deed. Petitioner No.1, is a bona fide purchaser who purchased the land on the basis of the document of title produced by the accused namely Sanat Kumar Lal i.e., the mama of O.P. No.2.
5. It is urged that it would be evident that O.P. No.2 (complainant) has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the fact and the plea that the land was recorded in the name of his mother. In fact, O.P. No.2 should have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of title. It is contended that if the averments made in the complaint and the statement of O.P. No.2 is presumed to be true, then also the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code is no
