The court emphasized that quashing of criminal proceedings should be an exception rather than a rule, and should only be done in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

[Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.]

1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. bearing A.C.B P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 dated 03.11.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (1) (a) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi wherein it has inter alia been alleged that by way of cheating and fraudulent documents, the petitioners have acquired the right, title, interest and possession of the land belonging to the persons of Scheduled Tribe community.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in criminal conspiracy with the coW. accused public servants have committed cheating, forgery and also the offences under the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by making fraudulent persons to be the claimant of the ownership of the land of a member of Scheduled Tribe and created forged documents with the help of said fraudulent claimants. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged in violation of the order dated 21.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.1791 of 2021. It is then submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are false. The petitioners claim that they are the real owners of the land in question. It is next submitted that the petitioners have also filed a contempt petition registered as Contempt Case (Civil) No.776 of 2021 before filing of this writ petition as has been mentioned in paragraph-15 of this writ petition and therein the petitioners have categorically mentioned that the petitioners have also filed a contempt petition which has been registered as Contempt (Civil) No.776 of 2021. So the words “have also filed” show that the said Contempt (Civil) No.776 of 2021 was filed prior to filing of the instant writ petition. It is next submitted that the proceeding initiated by the learned court of the Presiding Officer-cum-Minister, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is illegal and without jurisdiction and challenging that order much before filing this writ application, the petitioners have filed a separate writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.1791 of 2021 which is sub judice before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. It is next submitted that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs. State of Uttranchal and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in order to bring home the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to show that the accused had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. It is next submitted that no offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rattan Singh & Others Vs. Nirmal Gill & Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 936, has reiterated that a document is presumed to be genuine if it is a registered document and the onus to prove otherwise is on the person who has challenged the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Subramaniam & Another Vs. S. Janaki & Another in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011 dated 20.03.2020 and submits that in that case when the F.I.R. was registered notwithstanding with the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave liberty to first respondents of that appeal to file documents and paper with the police pursuant to the complaint in connection with that case and observed that the police on being satisfied that a crimi