IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1649 of 2014 ------

1. Prawin P. Chauhan @ Prawin Kumar P. Chauhan, s/o Late Prabhulal M. Chouhan, resident of Katras Road Matkuria, Dhanbad, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.-Bankmore, District-Dhanbad.

2. Prakash K. Chouhan @ Prakash A. Chouhan, S/o Late Amarshi Ramjee Chouhan, resident of Katras Road, Markuria, Near Gurudwara, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S.-Bankmore, District-Dhanbad.

3. Satish K. Chouhan @ Satish A. Chouhan S/o Late Amarshi Ramjee Chouhan, resident of Katras Road, Markuria, Near Gurudwara, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S.-Bankmore, District-Dhanbad.

4. Bam Shankar Pd. Ray, S/o Late Seva Ram Ray, resident of Jai Prakash Nagar, Gali No.5, Bartend, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-

Hirapur, District-Dhanbad.

5. Smt. Shilpi Ray @ Silpi Ray, W/o Bam Shankar Pd. Ray, S/o Late Seva Ram Ray, resident of Jai Prakash Nagar, Gali No.5, Bartend, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Hirapur, District-Dhanbad.

6. Pramod Agrawal S/o Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Shree Balajee Infratech Developers (P) Ltd. Shree Ram Plaza, 3rd Floor, Room No.-333, Bankmore, Dhanbad, P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.-Bankmore, District-Dhanbad.

… Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Parsuram Chouhan S/o Late Etwari Chouhan resident of Bastacolla, Dhansar, P.O.-Dhansar, P.S.-Jharia, District-Dhanbad. At present resident of Hirapur MADA Colony Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-

Hirapur, District-Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P.

------

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. 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 and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 04.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. No.1070 of 2013 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the charge has not yet been framed in this case and trial is yet to begin.

5. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant claims to be the power of attorney holder of the owners of the land under plot no.381 & 385, Khata no.112, Mouza Hirapur. It is alleged that the petitioner no.1 to 3 prepared a forged document and sold the said land to the petitioner no.4 to 6. It is next alleged that the petitioner no.1 to 3 sold the land by falsely representing a deed of adoption to be a power of attorney, but no power of attorney has ever existed.

6. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2025: JHHC: 34518 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, and submits that therein it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if a person creates a sale deed claiming to be the owner of the property, it is only the purchasers who can prosecute the vendor claiming that they have been cheated but not a third party can do the same.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in that case, this Court also re