Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Umesh Sharma @ Umesh Chandra Sharma, S/o. Mani Lal Sharma & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No.1969 of 2020
Decided On : 01-07-2026
For the Petitioners:Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Lukesh Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P.
Criminal proceedings for land-related cheating and forgery require proof of impersonation or direct contractual involvement by the informant; absent these, the dispute is civil in nature, and continuing criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Essential ingredients for cheating and forgery - Informant not a party to the deed - Lack of locus standi - Abuse of process of Court. (Paras 9-11)
(B) Criminal jurisdiction to quash proceedings is appropriate when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the necessary ingredients of the alleged criminal sections are not satisfied, even if the entire allegations are taken as true. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Criminal proceedings were initiated following a land sale transaction between various parties. The informant, who was not a party to the sale document, alleged cheating and forgery. The subordinate court took cognizance of several offences related to conspiracy, cheating, and forgery. Seeking to quash the proceeding, the accused approached the High Court, asserting that the dispute was civil in nature and the ingredients for the charged offences were not met.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the informant lacked standing to allege cheating as they were not a party to the impugned sale document. Regarding forgery, the absence of impersonation meant the offence could not be established. Furthermore, as there was no allegation of entrustment of property, the charge of criminal breach of trust was found unsubstantiated. The Court determined that the proceedings were an abuse of process used to settle a civil dispute.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery are maintainable when the informant is not a party to the disputed transaction and whether the absence of key ingredients necessitates the quashing of such proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: To establish the offences of cheating and forgery in property matters, the informant must be directly wronged or evidence of impersonation must be present. Where these elements are absent and the matter concerns private title claims, the criminal pursuit of such a dispute constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, justifying the quashing of proceedings.
Result: The entire criminal proceedings and the order of cognizance are quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural management of interlocutory applications for party amendment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. nature of criminal petition and the underlying factual allegations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. applicability of mohammed ibrahim principles to land dispute criminal cases. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.8111 of 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to remove the name of the opposite party No.2 namely Manik Lal Sharma as the opposite party No.2 has died during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this interlocutory application be allowed.
3. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State has no objection to the prayer of the petitioners.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer of the petitioners made in this interlocutory application is allowed.
5. The Registry is directed to delete the name of the opposite party No.2 namely Manik Lal Sharma from the array of the opposite parties in the cause title of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with red ink and re-number the State of Jharkhand as sole opposite party of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
6. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
Cr.M.P. No.1969 of 2020
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Chas (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2023 including the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in the said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the case is next fixed to 05.08.2026 for consideration of framing of charge.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.3 and 6 have sold the land belonging to the informant to the petitioner No.1 and 2 with connivance of the rest of the petitioners. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Chas (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences as already indicated above and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance against the petitioners of the said offences.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, para-20 of which reads as under:-
“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.”
and submits that since the informant is not a party to the sale-deed executed by the petitioner No.3 and 6 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2; so, by no stretch of imagination, the informant can pursue the case against the petitioners.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next submits that there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of either deceiving the informant or making him part with any property; which are the two essential ingredients to commit the offence of cheating and in view of the principle of law settled in the case of
