IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1272 of 2025

1. Naquee Akhtar @ Naqee Akhtar @ Nakki Akhtar, aged about 40 years, Son of Jamil Akhtar, resident of resident of Sahu Petrol Pump, Powerganj, P.O. & P.S.

Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga

2. Jawwad Akhtar, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Md.

Azam, resident of Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. & District-

Lohardaga ...... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jamil Ahmad, son of Late Maru Miyan, resident of Serenghatu Torar, P.O. Juria, P.S. Senha, District-

Lohardaga, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Kasyap, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. PP For the O.p.No. 2 : Mr. I. Ahmed, Adv.

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No. 12808 of 2025 Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this interlocutory application.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not pressed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Cr.M.P. No. 1272 of 2025

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 06.05.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No.21 of 2022 whereby and where under learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code inter alia against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Advocate and the petitioner no. 2 is the Advocate’s Clerk, who were responsible for execution of the sale deed by the co-accused, Bigan Ansari in favour of the co-accused Khurshid Khan.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying 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-16, 17 and 20 of which read as under:-

“16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.

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-accu