[2025:JHHC:19101] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1609 of 2025 ------ Lakshmikant Tibrawalla, Aged about 82 years, son of Late Ramchander Tibrawalla, Resident of Ballygunge Park, P.O. Ballygunge, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata- 700019 … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ratna Prabha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.234 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 24.06.2014, the registered power of attorney was executed by the trustees of ‘Jamnadas Dharmada trust’ in favour of the son of the informant being Dilip Kumar Saw for a total area of 48.36 decimals of land. A sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- was paid as advance between the period 20.01.2009 to 16.06.2014 and the power of attorney was made on 24.06.2014. Prior to executing the general of power of attorney, an agreement for sale of land was also entered into between informant’s [2025:JHHC:19101] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 company namely Panchdev Construction Private Limited and the ‘Jamnadas Dharmada trust’ represented by the petitioner in capacity of one of its trustees on 26.06.2014. Subsequent to the agreement for sale, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was also paid by the informant company to the ‘Jamnadas Dharmada trust’ on 13th October, 2014. It is alleged that after receipt of money and agreement, the petitioner being one of the trustees conspired with the co-accused persons including Jeetendra Tibrewal to make the land disputed and the petitioner executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeetendra Tibrewal and by exercising such power conferred upon Jeetendra Tibrewal, he executed sale deed in respect of the land in-question in favour of his wife. There is further allegation that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale dated 09.09.2021 for the sale of 96 Sq.ft. land with the co- accused Kishor Prasad Yadav, out of the said land, in respect of which the agreement for sale was entered into between ‘Jamnadas Dharmada trust’ and the son of the informant. There is also allegation that the petitioner permitted Pintu Singh to open a shop over the said land in respect of which the agreement was executed on 24.07.2020. Besides, there is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner permitted Suchit Kumar to take care of the property in respect of the said agreement for sale was entered into with the informant’s company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submits that in the absence of any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties having been played by the petitioner, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out [2025:JHHC:19101] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 against the petitioner. It is next submitted that in the absence of any entrustment of any property or valuables, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is further submitted that at best, it is a case of payment of advance money by the informant’s company in respect of an agreement for sale but such payment of advance cannot be termed as entrustment to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311, para-12 & 13 of which read as under:- “12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no. 2 - complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out. 13. Therefore, the ingredients of none of the offences alleged in the FIR are made out against the appellants and thus, no offence can be said to have been committed by them. The act of the appellant at best constitutes a civil wrong and does not call for any criminal action against them. A civil wrong cannot be given a criminal colour merely to coerce the appellants into registering the sale. The judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce specific performance of an agreement. Respondent no. 2 has ample remedies under the civil law and he has already resorted to the same by filing a civil suit for specific performance which is pending adjudication before the relevant forum. Thus, such a criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy & Another vs. J. Manjula Etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 448, para-56 of which reads as under:- [2025:JHHC:19101] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 “56. The practice of transferring an immovable property vide a GPA and agreement to sell has been discouraged by the following observations of this Court in Suraj Lamp (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:— “24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales.” (Emphasis supplied)” and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that power of attorney followed by agreement for sale, do not confer any right, title or interest upon the person entering into agreement for sale. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 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 the essential ingredients to constitute the offence [2025:JHHC:19101] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 punishable under Section 406 is that there must be an entrustment and there must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of any legal direction or of any legal contract as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 2 SCC 641. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case; in view of the discussions made above, there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused Jeetendra Tibrewal and also himself entered into an agreement on behalf of the ‘Jamnadas Dharmada trust’ with Kishor Prasad Yadav and permitted Pintu Singh to set up a shop and also permitted Suchit Kumar to act as a care-taker. In the absence of the essential ingredient of “entrustment of property”, for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-18 of the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar & Another (Supra) is as under:- “Section 420 IPC 18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false [2025:JHHC:19101] 6 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 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.” 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving any person by either making false or misleading representation or dishonest concealment or by any other act of omission or deletion nor there is any allegation of doing anything to intentionally to induce any person to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even after the allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no material to suggest that any of the co-accused person of having done anything to induce the informant to entrust any money to the trust or dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property, either in criminal conspiracy with the petitioner or in furtherance of common intention with the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the bald allegation that the petitioner did so in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code, even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code or for that matter 34 of the Indian Penal Code even after [2025:JHHC:19101] 7 Cr. M.P. No.1609 of 2025 the entire allegations made against the petitioner is considered to be true in their entirety. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that since none of the offences in respect of which the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner is made out, hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.234 of 2024 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.234 of 2024 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th of July, 2025 AFR/ Saroj