IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 3391 of 2018 Kishore Kr. Singh @ Kishori Kumar Singh @ Kishori Kr. Singh, aged about 62 years, S/o Late Bhairo Nath Singh, R/o Basanti Cottage, Murli Nagar, P.O and P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad--- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shakti Pado Goswami, Son of Late Jitu Goswami, R/o Village & P.O. Palani, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)--- Opp. Parties --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Pratik Sen Advocate --- 13 / 19.02.2025 This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.01.2017, passed by Ms. Ritu Kujur, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1583 of 2016, whereby and wherein, the learned court after inquiry, found prima facie case to be true under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of processes against the petitioner. 2. Case of the opposite party no. 2 is that he is the owner of the land ad-measuring 227.5 decimals appertaining to Khata Nos. 41 and 42 of Mouza Palani, Baliapur. He had executed a power of attorney in the name of the petitioner on 11.01.2014 with regard to the aforesaid land. Petitioner sold the portion of the land for Rs. 50.00 lakhs, but he did not transfer the sale amount to the opposite party no. 2 and his co-sharers. When the opposite party no. 2 and his co-sharers demanded the sale amount, he refused to do so. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 revoked the power of attorney on 06.02.2014. It is further case of the opposite party no. 2 that even after revocation of the power of attorney, petitioner sold 50 decimals of land to several persons and misappropriated the entire sale amount. It has been stated that altogether, petitioner has caused loss of Rs. 50.00 lakhs to the opposite party no. 2. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is nothing on the record to show at the very inception of the contract, there was any intention of deceit on the part of the petitioner 2. and as such, no case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him. It was also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the petitioner had misappropriated the sale amount worth Rs. 50.00 lakhs, and from the facts of this case, it will manifest that the petitioner had caused wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 2 and wrongful gains to himself. It was further submitted that the petitioner had sold the portion of the land even after revocation of the power of attorney. It was finally submitted that the petitioner had sold portion of the land to his wife and son. 5. The fact that the petitioner has sold the portion of the aforesaid land to his wife and son, and also the fact that it was sold even after revocation of the power of attorney and the petitioner did not handover the sale amount to the opposite arty no. 2 and his co-sharers, clearly manifests that the petitioner has caused wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 2 and his co-sharers and wrongful gains to himself. Petitioner had intention of the deceit from the very inception of the contract. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that prima facie case for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded