( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3020 of 2022 ------ 1. Aruna Taleja alias Aruna Taneja, aged about 42 years, wife of Ansu Dewan, resident of Sinha Compound, Ratu Road, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand; 2. Rajeev Choudhary alias Rajeev Choudhry, aged about 50 years, son of Indradeo Choudhary, resident of Staff Bank Colony, Piska More, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Payal Giridhar @ Smt. Payal Giridhar @ Payal Grridhar, aged about 33 years, wife of Gaurav Kumar, resident of Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Ramesh Chandra Taleja @ Ramesh Chandra Taneja, aged about 66 years, 5. Krishna Narayan Taleja @ Krishna Narayan Taneja, aged about 53 years, Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 both sons of Brijmohan Taleja, resident of Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Rajesh Kumar Verma, aged about 53 years, son of late Jagdish Verma, resident of Karamtoli, P.O.+ P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T ( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 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 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XII, Ranchi in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.276 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners purchased a land from Ashok Vishwakarma by a registered sale deed, the ownership of which property is claimed by the complainant. The power of attorney holder namely Ashok Vishwakarma, who was holding the power of attorney on behalf of vendor was knowing that a person who has executed power of attorney in favor of Ashok Vishwakarma is not the real owner of the property but Ashok Vishwakarma created a false document, as he obtained the power of attorney not from the real owner of the land but someone else than the real owner of the land. There is further allegation that the petitioners earlier entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant, paid him some token advance amount also, but did not pay the remaining consideration amount and took the plea that they have become the owner of the land in question, hence, they are not interested in purchasing the same from the informant. The complainant ( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 filed Complaint Case No.3124 of 2019 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XII, Ranchi, the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. basing upon which Lalpur P.S. Case No.276 of 2019 was registered and police took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation, police submitted Final Form and did not send up the accused person for trial because the dispute is of civil nature. Consequent upon that the complainant filed Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021 and the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the India Penal Code and directed issuance of summons to the petitioners to face the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, submits that it has categorically been mentioned therein that if a person who is not the owner of the property executes a sale deed in favour of another person by not impersonating as someone else but with his own identity, than such document will not amount to creation of a false document; but in such a case, it is only the purchaser of the property, who can proceed with the vendor, for having cheated the purchaser but no one else can proceed against such vendor. It is next submitted that in this case, though, the specific allegation of creating a false document and thereby committing forgery is against Ashok Vishwakarma, but Ashok Vishwakarma has not been arrayed as an accused in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021 nor is there any allegations that Ashok Vishwakarma created a false document and thereby committed forgery either in criminal conspiracy with the petitioners or in furtherance of common ( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 intention with the petitioners and the allegation only against the petitioners is that the petitioners had knowledge that Ashok Vishwakarma has created a forged document but there is no specification anywhere in the protest-cum- complaint; as to which was the false document that has been created by Ashok Vishwakarma. It is next submitted that in view of principle of law settled in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Supra), even if the members who executed the power of attorney in favor of Ashok Vishwakarma is not the real owner but executing a registered power of attorney in favor of Ashok Vishwakarma by a person claiming to be the owner of the property, though, he himself is not the owner of the property when there is no impersonation of the executant of the power of attorney, it can very well be said that such power of attorney cannot be termed as a false document and in the absence of creation of any false document, the offence of forgery is not made out. It is next submitted that the case is at present fixed for evidence before charge and charge has not yet been framed by the trial court in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of either Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or any similar provision of law and as there is no allegations against the petitioners of cheating the complainant or forging any document; so none of the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XII, Ranchi found prima facie case for issuing summons against the petitioners, is made out, even if the entire ( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and learned Spl.P.P. submits that the complainant is the registered power of attorney holder of the lawful owner of the property bearing Plot No.1256 namely Smt. Shanti Pathak, hence, it is submitted that none of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., 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 there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving the complainant or anyone else or fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the complainant or anyone of them so deceived to deliver any property and in the absence of such allegation against the petitioners, certainly neither the offences punishable under Section 419 of the IPC nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners, hence, this court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offences punishable under Section 419 or 420 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners. 8. 8. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute all the three said offences is forgery and to constitute forgery, the essential ingredient is creation ( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 of a false document. The only allegation against the petitioners is of purchasing the land which belonged to the members of the executant of the power of attorney, in favor of the complainant from a person other than the real owner of whom, Ashok Vishwakarma is the power of attorney holder but in view of the principles of law settled in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Supra), creation of such document will not amount to creation of a false document; in the absence of any allegation that either Ashok Vishwakarma or the principal, who executed the power of attorney in favor of the Ashok Vishwakarma, has impersonated for someone else. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there may be a case made out against Ashok Vishwakarma but certainly the offence of forgery is not made out against any of the petitioners and no explanation is forthcoming from the complainant as to why he did not array Ashok Vishwakarma as an accused in the protest-cum-complainant, when the allegation of commission of creation of false document is directly against Ashok Vishwakarma and both the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 during the course of hearing of this petition, submitted that Ashok Vishwakarma was alive on the date of filing of the Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-XII, Ranchi, is made out against the petitioners, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process ( 2025:JHHC:16084 ) 7 Cr. M.P. No.3020 of 2022 of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XII, Ranchi in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.276 of 2019, be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioners only. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class-XII, Ranchi in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.4142 of 2021 arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.276 of 2019, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th of June, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj