The court established that allegations of deception necessary for an offence under Section 417 of the IPC were inadequate, quashing the criminal proceedings due to their basis in a civil dispute.

ORDER :

1. By filing this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Om Prakash Chhawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha have challenged the order dated 26th March 2007 by which processes have been issued against them in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007. The petitioners have also pleaded that the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 reflect non-application of mind on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi who overlooked the fact that the petitioners never impersonated any person and the complaint was tainted and actuated with mala fide and, therefore, liable to be quashed.

2. On the basis of the complaint petition filed by Janab Salim Sahab, Complaint Case No. 37 of 2007 (in short “C-37/07”) was registered which was made over to the Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi for inquiry under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, T.R No. 108 of 2007 was instituted. In the inquiry proceedings, the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation on 29th January 2007 and Jafar Alam was produced as a witness by the complainant to tender pre-summoning evidence on 2nd February 2007. By an order dated 8th March 2007, the Judicial Magistrate directed the complainant to produce the original records and, thereafter, cognizance of the offence under section 417 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE was taken on 26th March 2007. By the same order, the Judicial Magistrate directed issuance of processes under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused including the petitioners.

3. In the complaint petition, seven persons including Om Prakash Chhawnika and Kumud Kumar Jha are arrayed as accused who according to the complainant have committed the offence under sections 384, 488, 341, 420, 461 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . However, as noticed above, the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence only under section 417 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the accused including the present petitioners have been summoned to face the trial.

4. In the complaint case, it is stated that Ranu Priti Mukherjee claiming herself in exclusive possession over a piece of land comprised under Khata No. 43, RS Plot Nos.113, 1608 and 1609 situated at 62, Circular Road at Ranchi entered into an agreement to sale with the complainant on 14th June 1986 for a consideration of Rs.50 lakhs out of which Rs.2 lakhs shall be retained by the complainant to meet the legal expenses for making the subject lands litigation fee. The complainant pleaded that on part performance of the agreement he was put in physical possession and developed the subject lands spending a substantial amount. The complainant further stated that, in the meantime, Ranu Preeti Mukherjee passed away and in her place accused nos. 1 to 5 were substituted in T.S No. 35 of 1990 which was instituted by him for permanent injunction. According to the complainant, the accused nos.6 and 7 (who are the present petitioners) came to his house and asked to return the aforementioned agreement to sale and take back the part consideration amount paid by him. However, he refused the proposal whereupon the accused nos. 5 and 6 called some unknown anti-social elements and confined him and Jafar Alam in a room and hurled filthy abuses upon them. He further alleged that he was put to threat by the accused nos. 6 and 7 and asked to sign one blank non-judicial stamp paper and to save his life he signed the blank paper when the accused put a revolver on his head. He further alleged that the accused nos. 6 and 7 assaulted the labourers on 31st December 2006 who were engaged in construction work and declared that they have right