Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Jainendra Kumar Jyoti – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 2700 of 2013
Decided on : 11-05-2023
Cheating - Criminal Proceeding - IPC Section 415, Section 482 - The court quashed the order taking cognizance and entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case. The court analyzed the documents and found that the case of cheating was not made out. It also emphasized that if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it appears to be civil in nature and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of cheating and forgery in a land transaction. The complaint alleged that the petitioner and another co-accused defrauded the complainant and his company by transferring a piece of land based on a Power of Attorney, which was later found to belong to the Government. The petitioner argued that he was not aware of the defect in title and that the case of cheating was not made out.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case of cheating was not made out as the consideration amount was not received and it was within the knowledge of the company that the land in question was a Government plot. The court also emphasized that if there is any dispute with regard to the land, it appears to be civil in nature and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the case of cheating and forgery was made out against the petitioner in the land transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the documents and found that the case of cheating was not made out. It also emphasized that if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it appears to be civil in nature and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order taking cognizance and entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case. It was made clear that any civil proceeding pending earlier or instituted later on will be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2011 as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Complaint Case being P.C.(C/1) Case No.161 of 2009, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella.
3. The complaint case was filed on 07.12.2009 alleging therein that the petitioner along with another co-accused namely Satrughan Kumar defrauded the complainant and his company namely Adhunik Group of Companies, P.S. Kandra, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan by fraudulently transferring the piece of land bearing Thana No.47 Khata No.45, Plot No.562 and 656, measuring an area of 0.46 acres on the basis of Power of Attorney which upon scrutiny and verification by the complainant was found that Plot No.562 belongs to the Government and its real Khata No. is 77 instead of Khata No.45. It was further alleged that the aforesaid act of cheating and forgery committed by the petitioner and one another coaccused person, the petitioner has been siphoned away Rs.1,90,000/- of the complainant towards consideration money of the aforesaid land.
4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner by way of inviting attention of the Court to the complaint petition submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was the Power of Attorney holder of accused no.2 namely Satrughan Kumar who represented himself to be the title holder of the land situated at Mouza Padampur, P.S. Kandra, Than No.47, Khata No.45 bearing Plot No.562 and 656, measuring an area of 0.46 acres of land. He further submits that the petitioner was engaged as commission agent by M/s. Adhunik Power Natural Resources Limited for purchase of the land in order to establish their power plant in the State of Jharkhand and for this the petitioner was entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- per acre as commission for the services rendered. He further submits that Satrughan Kumar came forward stating that he is having right, title and interest of the land in issue and executed the sale deed on 16.07.2008 in favour of the company concerned. He also submits that the petitioner was not having knowledge about defect in title. He submits that it has been alleged that after one and half year, when the complainant proceeded to take possession of the land on behalf of the company, he was intercepted by one Vikram Hansda who claimed to have purchased part of the land prior to the purchase by the company and on enquiry, it was revealed that Plot No.562 is a Government land and its real Khata No. is 77 instead of Khata No.45. He submits that in this background, the complaint case has been filed by the company. He further submits that there are two impeachable documents on record contained in Annexures-3 and 4 of the petition. By way of inviting the Court's attention on Annexure-3, he submits that it has been pointed out by Tarun Kumar Singh, who is witness in the complaint petition as well as in sale deed, that Plot No.562 is a Government plot and consideration amount has not been paid as yet and request has been made to stop the payment to the petitioner related to sale of 0.46 acres of land. By way of referring Annexure-4, he submits that it is the Minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors of the Company, wherein, it has been discussed in the meeting that there is typographical error with regard to plot number and it has been typed as Plot No.562 instead of Plot No.561. He relied upon the judgment passed in Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and another; [(2012) 1 SCC 520].
5. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
“20. As rightly stated so, though it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or conduct a roving enquiry in respect of merits of the accusation, but if on t
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the case of cheating and forgery must be supported by evidence, and if there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it should be ....
Cheating – If criminality is not made out, continuation of criminal case will amount to abuse of process of law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove cheating under Section 415 of the I.P.C., fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise is necessary.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense of cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the outset of the agreement.
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
A criminal complaint for forgery and cheating cannot be sustained merely because a party enters into a property transaction despite a defective title originating from previously declared invalid docu....
The court ruled that allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC require evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of transaction, which was lacking, necessitating a quash of criminal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
