IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

------

Raj Kumar Verma, aged about 37 years, S/O Narayan Verma, r/o

village Nimatand, PO – Sabalpur, PS – Suryia, District- Giridih.

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Ishwar Prasad Kushwaha, s/o late Hari Mahto, r/o village

Potma, PO & PS – Sariya, District- Giridih.

… … Opp. Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kr. No. 1, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.

For the Opp. P. No. 2 : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Protest cum Complaint Case No. 2750 of 2019 of the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner sold his land to the complainant by executing sale deed and the mutation was done in the name of the complainant. The complainant is paying land revenue receipt but the petitioner is not handing over the possession of the land sold to the complainant. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 140 of 2019

and the same was referred to Police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. basing upon which Birni P.S. Case No. 16 of 2019 was registered. After investigation, Police submitted Final Form against the petitioner on the ground that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and did not send the petitioner up for trial. On the basis of the Protest cum Complaint Petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 03.08.2022 found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed to issue summons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial of the case is yet to begin and charge has not yet been framed.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Gupta & Another Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another dated 27.06.2023 in Cr.M.P. No. 1221 of 2022 that in Para No. 8 therein, this Court has enumerated the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:- “8. Now, so far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients of the said offence are as follow:-

(i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission, (ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and (iii) Such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.”

And submits that as none of the ingredients of the said offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out; even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety.

6. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Uma Devi & Others. Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2024: JHHC: 17102 and submits that in that case there was no allegation of impersonation against the petitioner of that case and this Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding. It is lastly submitted that the p