Judicial orders in criminal cases cannot be quashed under Article 226 if the charge sheet is not challenged, and the allegations warrant a trial.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

I.A. No. 976 of 2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner does not press this interlocutory application.

3. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not pressed.

W.P. (Cr.) No. 475 of 2023

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Nagri P.S. Case No. 114 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and consequential reliefs.

3. The undisputed fact remains that in the meanwhile, the police completed investigation of the case and after completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 27.09.2023 the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VI, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and ordered for issuance of summons.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the charge sheet or the cognizance order have not been made the subject matter of this writ petition nor the same has been challenged by the petitioner.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the director of Barira Developers and Construction Pvt. Ltd. played deception with the informant and her relatives by inducing them to purchase the plots of land in a project of the said builder. The informant and her relatives being induced by the petitioner agreed to purchase four plots of land bearing numbers LIG Plot Nos. 4 to 6 and LIG Plot No. 103 and paid the entire consideration amount including the cost of constructing the boundary wall and the cost of the agreement but the petitioner cheated the informant and her relatives by not delivering the possession of the said plots of land for which the petitioner has received the entire consideration amount nor got the same registered in favour of the informant and her three relatives and ultimately, refused to hand over the possession of the land purchased by the informant and her relatives which led the informant to lodge a written report with the Officer-in-Charge of Nagri Police Station, Ranchi basing upon which Nagri P.S. Case No. 114 of 2023 has been registered and police after investigation of the case found the allegation to be true and submitted charge sheet.

6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner admits having entered into an agreement with the informant and her relatives for sell of land to them. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that after the said agreement, time and again the informant was served with letters for payment of installment due to be payable by her but the informant has not taken any step to start construction of the building over the plot of land in question. It is next by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the relatives of the informant have not come forward to lodge any FIR. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the informant is well aware about the cancellation of the agreement by the company of the petitioner in the year 2008 and there is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the informant in lodging of the FIR hence, on this score alone, the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed. In this respect, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishan Singh (dead) Through LRs. vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 775 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia observed that in cases where there is delay in lodging the FIR, the court has to lo