IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of specific allegations of deception and intent to defraud against a party in criminal proceedings can lead to the quashing of charges under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate –XVI, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to inter-alia the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 131 of 2023.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a purchaser of a land belonging to the complainant in respect of which the complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused –Lal Kishore Ram at the behest of the other two co-accused namely Arun Kumar Gope and Jitendra Kumar Singh.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, para - 23 of which reads as under:-

“23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.” (Emphasis supplied)

that, it is the petitioner who could have initiated criminal proceeding against the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh but there is no way, the complainant who is a third party could have instituted case against the petitioner more so when no false document has been created by the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petitioner had any knowledge about the revocation of the power of attorney by the complainant executed by her in favour of the co-accused –Lal Kishore Ram. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 467/468 or for that matter offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.

5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and Another Vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu and Another, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 203, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the allegations against the petitioners do not reveal any specific role ascribed to the petitioner in commission of the offence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding be quashed against the petitioner.

6. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435, para -15 of which reads as under:

“15. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx. Respondent 2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court.”

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sale deed executed by co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh is of dated 16.04.2009 and the co-accused –Jitendra Kumar Singh gave the cheque in the year 2011; but the complaint having been filed after about 12 years, in the year 2023, amounts to gross abuse of process of court and on this score also, the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124,