##PAGE1##

( 2026:JHHC:2540 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.2904 of 2024

------

Jitendra Pandey, aged about 42 years, Son of Om Prakash Pandey,

resident of S.B. No.8, Hill View Enclave, Narayani Garden, Phase-3

Near Kamdhenu Enclave Office, Manipita Telco, P.O. & P.S.-

Govindpur, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum and

temporarily residing at Qr No.2-60, Rd. No.1, Telco Colony, Near

Suraj Petrol Pump, P.O.-Telco, P.S.-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East

Singhbhum, Jharkhand, 831004.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Umesh Prasad Barnwal, S/o L. Barnwal, R/o-H.N. No.1, Hill

View Enclave, Narayani Garden, Phase-3, Near Kamdhenu

Enclave Office, Manipita, Telco, P.O. & P.S.-Govindpur, Town

Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand.

3. Satish Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Ekwal Singh.

4. Anita Singh, W/o Satish Kumar Singh.

Both 3 & 4 R/o-N/306/4, Telco Colony, P.O.-Telco Works, PS-

Telco Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, State-

Jharkhand.

5. A. Ramesh, S/o Late M.N. Rao, R/o-H.No.192, Zone No.6, P.O.-

Birsanagar, Town-Jamshedpur, P.S.-Jamshedpur, Dist.-

Singhbhum East, Jharkhand.

6. Rupesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Anil Kumar Singh, R/o-Vill + PO

Leh, P.S.-Chatra, Dist.-Chatra, State-Jharkhand.

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Advocate

For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P.

For the O.P. 2 to 6 : None

1

Cr. M.P. No.2904 of 2024

( 2026:JHHC:2540 )

------

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 to 6, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to 6 in

spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with the

prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in

Criminal Revision No.157 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur dismissed

the said criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated

02.05.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in

Complaint Case No.7242 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned

Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur dismissed the protest-cum-

complaint petition filed by the complainant who is petitioner herein;

under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner/complainant filed

Complaint Case No.2351 of 2021 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jamshedpur which upon being referred to police under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; police registered Govindpur P.S. Case No.03 of

2022 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the

2

Cr. M.P. No.2904 of 2024

( 2026:JHHC:2540 )

investigation, police found lack of evidence against the accused persons of

the case, who are private opposite parties of this Cr.M.P. and submitted

Final Form without sending them for trial; after which the petitioner filed

Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.7242 of 2022.

5. The allegations made by the petitioner-complainant is that the

accused person of the case namely Umesh Prasad Barnwal has executed a

sale deed in favor of Satish Kumar Singh in respect of the land belonging

to the complainant/petitioner, after changing the boundary of the land,

though, the said Umesh Prasad Barnwal earlier sold the land to the father

of the complainant/petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

Jamshedpur considered the settled principle of law that when a sale deed

is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be

possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to alleged 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 complainant is not cheated by the seller rather the purchaser

has been made co-accused