The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, as outlined in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992).

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

3. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

4. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings including First Information Report instituted against the present petitioner in connection with Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 4031/2012 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code said to be pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M. at Ranchi.

5. As per the allegation made in the First Information Report dated 17.07.2012 which has been lodged by the informant/Manager of Kashish developers, on 06.12.2010, the petitioner along with Md. Athar and Kausar Ansari had approached the chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Kashish Developers showing title deeds of land situated at village Chakla district Ranchi relating to Plot No. 982 (part), Plot No. 829 (part), Plot No. 907 (part) and Plot No. 247 (part) total area 51 decimals and proposed to sell the property to the company. The petitioner had shown registered sale -deeds being (a) sale deed no. 14491 dated 21.06.2010, (b) sale -deed no. 19474 dated 23.11.2009, (c) sale-deed no. 3436 dated 09.03.2009 in favour of Kausar Ansari and (d) sale-deed in the name of Nausad Ansari bearing no. 5326 dated 11.04.2009 and all the three named accused persons including the petitioner claimed that they are in possession of the entire 51 decimals of land and the title is clear . Consequently, the said company bought 51 decimal of land @ Rs. 35,000/- per decimal and paid advance amount of Rs. 18,50,095/- vide Cheque No. 627674 dated 22.12.2010. Thereafter, on 06.01.2011, the petitioner sold the entire 51 decimal of land by registered deed no. 125 dated 06.01.2011 in favour of the informant – company. It is also alleged that the accused also undertook to get land mutated in favour of the company. Thereafter, on 30.01.2012 the petitioner came to the office of the company and showed correction slip bearing no. 3024 R27/11-12 and rent receipt dated 27.01.2012.

It is further alleged in the First Information Report that on 30.01.2012, the informant Manish Kumar along with others went to the land for construction of boundary wall and thereupon, the villagers namely Sameem Ansari, Neyaz Ali and 4 to 5 other persons claimed that they are the owners of the land and obstructed the construction of boundary wall. Upon this, the officials of the company showed the registered deed executed by the petitioner and photocopy of the deed executed by Md. Athar and Md. Kausar (the two named co-accused). The villagers claimed that the land never belonged to the vendors of the aforesaid three accused persons and the company has been defrauded by the execution of the sale-deeds. The said officers of the company went to the office of the Circle Officer , Ormanjhi and came to know that the rent receipt is being issued in the name of the recorded raiyats and without deducting the land of the earlier owners of the land , a separate mutation has been opened in the name of the company. When the company informed this to the petitioner and the co-accused and asked for refund of the amount of Rs. 18,50,095/-, then the petitioner and others repeatedly assured to return the money, but did not do so.

6. In the aforesaid background, the case was instituted against the petitioner and other co-accused who were named in the First Information Report under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that the entire dispute arises out of civil dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and no criminality as such is involved. He has also submitted that the land was transferred through registered deed by the pet