Jayant Ghadia s/o Late Baidhar Ghadia vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No.999 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.5475 of 2011 and also the charge-sheet as well as the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, with the intention of playing deception since the beginning, deceived the informant by suppressing the material facts and falsely posing himself to be a power of attorney holder of the owner of the landed property belonging to Sangeeta Shah and by so deceiving, induced the informant to enter into an agreement for sale of the said property with him, took Rs.50,00,000/- as an advance and misappropriated the said amount. There is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has forged the power of attorney, purported to have been executed by Sangeeta Shah in his favour dated 12th May, 2011 and the same having been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 26.05.2011; but police upon verification of the same found that the same is a forged document; as no such general power of attorney has ever been registered with the concerned Office of the Sub-Registrar. There is further allegation that the petitioner has dishonestly misappropriated the said amount obtained by him by way of cheating and has not sold the land, the price of which was fixed at Rs.1,10,00,000/-. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No.999 of 2011 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi basing upon the charge-sheet submitted, took cognizance of the said offences as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial is yet to begin and charge has not yet been framed against the petitioner and no witness has been examined in this case. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the transaction between the parties is basically a commercial transaction. It is also submitted that there is no allegation of any motive of the petitioner in committing the crime. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is primarily a civil dispute. It is further submitted that none of the offences in respect of which charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken, is made out against the petitioner. The informant/opposite party No.2 has not paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner as claimed by him. It is also submitted that mere inability to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. The petitioner has already returned Rs.30,00,000/-that he received from the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction and by such deception, induced the informant to part with Rs.50,00,000/-. It is further submitted that it is out and out false on the part of the petitioner that he has returned the money admittedly taken by him from the informant. It is then submitted that the purported registered power attorney executed by Sangeeta Shah in favour of the petitioner is a forged document created by the petitioner. It is next submitted that though the petitioner is fraudulently claiming that such power of attorney has been executed and got it registered in the office of Sub-Registrar by Sangeeta Shah in his favour but police during the investigation of the case found that no such power of attorney, as claimed by the petitioner was ever registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of deceiving and thereby inducing informant so deceived to part with Rs.50,00,000/- by fraudulently and dishonestly claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the property of Sangeeta Shah, though in fact admittedly on the date of such agreement, he was not the power of attorney holder but subsequently the petitioner has created the forged document purported to be the power of attorney executed by Sangeeta Shah and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar in favour of the petitioner though in fact police, during the investigation of the case, found that no such power of attorney has even been registered in the concerned Sub-Registrar’s Office.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences in respect of which charge-sheet has been submitted and learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case. Therefore, it is not a fit case to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 19.01.2023, is vacated.

Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.