Advocates:
['INDRAJIT SINHA', '', 'SURAJ SINGH', 'AMITABH PRASAD', 'VIPUL PODDAR', 'AJAY KUMAR SAH', 'RAJNEESH VARDHAN', '', 'SHREE PRAKASH JHA', 'AISHWARYA PRAKASH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 2729 of 2018

M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd., having registered office at 8A, Express

Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, P.O. & P.S.- Sarani, District

Kolkata (West Bengal), local office at Rungta House, Chaibasa,

P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District Chaibasa (Jharkhand), through

its power of Attorney Holder Sri Jagdeo Kumar Oraon @

Jagdev Kumar Oran, Son of Late Dasai Oraon, Resident of

Padma Enclave, Sentola, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa,

District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand

…

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Gautam Mahatha, son of Vishnupad Mahatha, resident of

Village- Silphor, P.O.- Silphor, P.S.- Pindrajora, District-

Bokaro

…

…

Opposite Parties

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Advocate

---

Through Video Conferencing

---

13/11.03.2022

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

3.

Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the Opposite

Party-State is also present.

4.

The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire

criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 507 of

2016 registered for the alleged offence punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code including

order taking cognizance dated 09.05.2017 passed by the court of

the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro whereby and

whereunder cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 467,

2

468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, said to be pending before the

court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

case of the Complainant is that on 29.02.2016, the accused no.1

namely, Shyam Kishore Mahtha son of Madan Mahtha and

accused no.2 namely, Anand Mahtha son of Yogendra Mahtha

made false genealogical table in their names as descendants of

Rishi Mahtha in connection with inheritance of the khatiyani

land of Mouza- Silphor bearing Khata No.70, Plot No.2147 and

2206 to 2232 (total 28 plots), total area 20 acres 63 decimals,

although the previous genealogical table was in the name of

one Rishi Mahtha whose only son was Manmod Mahtha. The

Complainant claims to be the descendant of the recorded tenant

Rishi Mahta. It is alleged that the accused no.1, Shyam Kishore

Mahtha, after making the false genealogical table, sold away the

aforesaid property to the petitioner company.

6.

The learned counsel submits that there are seven accused

persons in the complaint petition. The learned court below, vide

order dated 09.05.2017, has taken cognizance only against two

persons i.e. accused no.1 Shyam Kishore Mahtha and accused

no.3 i.e. the petitioner company represented through its

attorney holder Jagdeo Kumar Oraon. He further submits that

no offence under Sections 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code is made out against the aforesaid two accused persons as

per the impugned order itself and no material was available to

take cognizance against rest of the accused persons. The learned

counsel submits that the cognizance has been taken only

against the seller and the purchaser of the property–the

petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the property was

purchased vide Sale Deed No.2106 dated 04.05.2016 and the

3

consideration amount of Rs.18,56,700/- was paid to the accused

no.1 through demand draft dated 02.05.2016 and the registered

sale deed is on record.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the land was purchased through land facilitator as the

petitioner had entered into land facili