Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Shoab Hasan Chand, S/o Late Dr. Ali Hassan Chand - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police - Respondents
W.P.(Cr). No. 157 of 2024
Decided On : 30-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prashant Pallav, Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Deepankar, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Imran Beig, Mr. Manjeet Kumar, Advocate
No criminal offense was made out against the petitioner, as mere allegations of encroachment do not constitute sufficient legal grounds for prosecution under IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120
(B) - Quashing of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings - Allegations against petitioner constituted encroachment and lack of direct accusation - No criminal breach of trust discerned under IPC, allegations did not satisfy necessary legal elements for charges of cheating, forgery, or mischief - FIR quashed against petitioner; analogous civil remedies available. (Paras 1-36)
(B) Criminal procedure - Quashing of FIR - Supreme Court precedent established that FIR can be quashed for some accused if no prima facie case exists against them. (Paras 28-32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, managing director of the company, was implicated after a development agreement went sour, with allegations of improper land usage and non-payment of rent. The complainant alleged multiplicity of charges, yet the court found no direct evidence against the petitioner, particularly concerning encroachment on non-transferable land.
Findings of Court:
Allegations did not substantiate the claimed criminal offenses; thus, the FIR against the petitioner was quashed.
Issues: Whether the allegations constitute viable criminal offenses and the propriety of quashing the FIR for a particular accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations of encroachment do not amount to criminal misconduct without requisite intent or wrongful acts that establish the crime.
Result: Writ petition allowed; F.I.R. quashed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner in this Criminal Writ Petition has prayed for following reliefs:-
“For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the F.I.R. and entire criminal proceeding arising out of Lower Bazar P.S. No. 377/2023 registered on 6th of December, 2023 which was registered against the Petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 406 , 420, 323, 504, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, which is now pending in the Learned Court of JM, Ranchi.”
2. That the fact of the case is that the informant entered into a development agreement with M/s Aahaa Planers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. for construction and development of multi-storied building over Plot No. 633 & 634. However, the accused inspite of including Plot No. 631, 632, 635 and 636 wrongly included Plot No. 639, which is CNT-reserved non-transferable land in the project map without permission. They also gave false information about Plot No. 639 to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to pay the informant Rs.35,000/- per month with 5% annual increase as rent but has not paid anything since May 2021 and when he protested, he was threatened and assaulted. The petitioner is Managing Director of the company.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and no direct accusation has been made against him in the First Information Report. The First Information Report claims that construction has been made over Plot No. 639 also which is non-transferable land. In case of “ Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rane reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 159 ”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that without clear accusations and without including the company as a party, the company officer or Managing Director cannot be held responsible. He submits that the accusations are false and do not attract criminal offence. He further submits that section 406 of the Indian Penal Code applies only when there is a clear 'criminal breach of trust', which is not the case here. Further, in the case of “ State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if no offence is made out, the FIR should be quashed.
4. Learned counsel representing the state submits that the FIR discloses serious allegations against the petitioner and other co-accused. The allegation is of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. He further submits that specific allegations has been made that CNT-reserved land (Plot No. 639) was illegally included in the project plan and wrong information was submitted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, thereby misleading a statutory authority.
Further there is allegation of threatening and assault also.
5. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, I find that the allegation as per the First Information Report arising out of complaint petition is that the Builder has constructed part of the building over Plot No.639 also by encroachment and without sanction of the plan. Petitioner is the land owner of Plot No.635 and not of plot No.639, which is the disputed plot. The encroachment over a plot cannot be said to attract any criminal offence.
6. The First Information Report has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 323, 504, 427, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code lays down punishment for criminal breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to quote of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: -
“ Section 405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode
