(2025:JHHC:23134) 1 Cr. M.P. No.2801 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2801 of 2018 ------ 1. Deleted 2. Murari Tiwary, Aged about 52 years, Son of Late Satya Deo Narayan Tiwary, Resident of Village: Boreya, P.O. & P.S.: Kanke, District: Ranchi … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jageshwar Mahto, Son of Late Mahadeo Mahto, resident of Siddi, P.O. Hundur, P .S.: Pithoria, District: Ranchi … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manjeet Kr. Choudhary, Advocate Md. Imran Beig, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate Mr. Risav Parasar, Advocate ------ 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 09.05.2014 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No.1851 of 2010 and the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1851 of 2010. (2025:JHHC:23134) 2 Cr. M.P. No.2801 of 2018 3. The allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that he was instrumental in creation of a false document being sale-deed dated 07.04.2008 executed by Jhubaria Devi in favour of Van Vrindavan Construction Private Limited being an identifying witness of the said sale-deed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the copy of the said sale- deed has been annexed as Annexure-2 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the identifying witnesses are Balak Mahto and Jaidhan Mahto and not the petitioner No.2 and this fact is also not disputed by the complainant. It is next submitted that in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant, the name of the petitioner No.2 is not appearing. It is then submitted that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner No.2 will amount to abuse of process of law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner No.2 but fairly submit that in the sale-deed which is stated to be a forged document, the signature of the petitioner No.2 is not appearing. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner No.2 was instrumental in creating any forged document. Secondly, the Annexure-2 which is the sale-deed, is a registered sale-deed. The said sale- deed bears the signature and photograph of the executant namely Jhubaria Devi. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that Jhubaria Devi is not the owner of the land in question, it is only the Van Vrindavan Construction (2025:JHHC:23134) 3 Cr. M.P. No.2801 of 2018 Private Limited-the purchaser of the property in the sale deed, who can take the plea that the said Jhubaria Devi or anyone associated with her, has committed forgery in view of 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. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as no offence against the petitioner No.2 is made out on the basis of the materials available in the record, so the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner No.2 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 09.05.2014 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.1851 of 2010 and the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1851 of 2010, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner No.2. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 09.05.2014 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.1851 of 2010 and the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1851 of 2010, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner No.2. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of August, 2025 AFR/ Animesh