The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind before directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the wide powers of the Magistrate under the same section.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Jitendera S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the informant.

2.This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 245 of 2019 registered under sections 406, 420, 323, 341, 384, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi.

3. Complainant Deepak Sahu has filed a complaint petition before the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and same has been registered as Complaint Case No. 3247 of 2018 and thereafter same has been sent to the Argora Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of First Information Report wherein it has been alleged that the accused persons made contact with the complainant at the residence of the complainant and they told to the complainant in the presence of the witnesses that they are interested to sale their land bearing Khata Nio. 15, Plot No. 1427, Thana No. 228, Mouza Pundag. Thereafter the accused persons shown the documents regarding the ownership of the land to the complainant in presence of witnesses and after seeing the said documents of landed property of all accused persons the complainant became ready to purchase the same in his name and thereafter the complainant started making payment as advance to all accused persons in different dates and also issued money receipt after taking the amount in favour of complainant. It is further stated that all accused persons jointly received a sum of Rs. 17,24,700/- from the complainant in the name of sale-purchase of said land with a promise to execute sale deed in favour of complainant on or before year, 2015. It is further alleged that after repeatedly request made by the complainant to execute the sale deed in his favour, the accused persons started delaying practice. In the month of December, 2017 complainant came to know that the accused persons are trying to sale out the said land to other persons and they have also received the advance amount from the said persons. Thereafter the complainant went to take the possession of the said land then the accused persons accepted that they have received advance amount for the said land from the other persons and after taken a huge amount of Rs. 17,24,700/- they did not execute the sale deed in the favaour of complainant. Thereafter the complainant told the accused persons that he will go to lodge a case against them then they promised to return the entire amount of Rs. 17,24,700/- with interest on or before the month of May, 2018. It is further alleged that after lapse of promised period when the accused persons did not return the amount of the complainant and sale out the entire land to different persons. On 03.06.2018 a meeting was held between the parties wherein the accused persons denied to return the complainant’s amount and also refused to execute the sale deed of the said land in favour of the complainant.

4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint which is civil in nature, the learned court without application of mind has sent the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police to register and investigate the case which is against the mandate of law. To buttress his argument he relied on judgement in the case of “Priyanka Srivastava & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others” reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. On the same point, he further relied on judgment in the case of “Babu Venkatesh & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Another” (Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2022) reported in 2022 (2) JLJR SC 1. Referring to the complaint petition, he further submits that the entire allegation is with regard to transaction of land and without taking recourse under the civil law, criminal law has been put in motion against the petitioners who are owner of the land. According to him in the