IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 503 of 2023

1. Puran Kumar Mahato, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Badri Mahato,

resident of Brirajpur, P.O. –Kharkhari, P.s. –Madhuban, District –

Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

2. Namita Kumari, aged about 23 years, D/o Ruplal Saw, W/o Ranjan

Mahato, resident of Birajpur, P.O. –Kharkhari, P.S. –Madhuban,

District –Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

3. Raju Saw, aged about 45 years, son of Bhajan Teli, R/o Ramnagar

Garh, P.O. Ramnagar Garh, P.S. –Maduda, District –Dhanbad,

Jharkhand.

.... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Nehal Chandra Mahato, son of Late Tulu Mahato, resident of

Telmacchho, P.O. –Ramnagargarh, P.S. –Mahuda, District –

Dhanbad, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate

: Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate

For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

: Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate

…..

By the Court:-

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 proceeding including the order dated 05.12.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.

2476 of 2018 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 420/120B/467/468/ 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Registration Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 purchased the property belonging to the complainant, from the co-accused persons, who have been cited as accused nos. 1 to 5 of the complaint, on the basis of the fabricated documents and forged genealogical table and got the said land registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of District Dhanbad.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 that in para-20 and 23 thereof, it has categorically been mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if a person sells a property knowing that it does not belonged to him and thereby defrauds the person, who purchased the property, then the person defrauded i.e. the purchaser may complain that the vendor has committed fraudulent act of cheating but a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court in the case of Sharda Nand Chaubey & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2023:JHHC:41452, in the facts of that case where the petitioners before this Court purchased the land belonging to the complainant-informant from the co-accused person, quashed the criminal proceeding against them. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. The learned Special P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the petitioners are also squarely responsible for the forgery and for making false statement and getting the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 in which the petitioner no.3 was an attesting witness. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegation of forgery is only against the co- accused persons who have been cited as accused nos. 1 to 5 of the complaint. There is absolutely no allegation of commission of any forgery against the petitioners. In the