W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 744 of 2024 Ajay Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Shiva Ram Singh, R/o Katrasgarh, Katras, P.O. & P.S. Katras, Dist. Dhanbad. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bishwajit Singh, S/o Late Sarbajit Singh, R/o Rajganj Road Pachgarhi Bazar, Katras, P.O. –Katrasgarh, P.S. –Katras, Dist- Dhanbad. …. Respondents With W.P. (Cr.) No. 825 of 2024 Rajesh Bahadur Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Raj Pati Singh, R/o Rajganj Road, Pachgarhi Bazar, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. –Katras, Dist. Dhanbad. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bishwajit Singh, S/o Late Sarvjit Singh, R/o Rajganj Road Pachgarhi Bazar, Katras, P.O. –Katrasgarh, P.S. –Katras, Dist- Dhanbad. …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to AAG-IA : Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, Advocate : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 2 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the common prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 2752 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, including the order dated 11.06.2024 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406/465/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the writ petitioners. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 744 of 2024 is the paternal uncle of the complainant and the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 825 of 2024 is known to the complainant for about 25-30 years and the petitioners were looking after the property of another paternal uncle of the complainant namely Tribhuwan Narayan Singh who was diagnosed with undifferentiated schizophrenia. It is alleged that Tribhuwan Narayan Singh was neither able to move out of his own nor he was able to comprehend the acts done by him. Tribhuwan Narayan Singh was an unmarried person and he did not have any issue. He did not partition the properties. It is alleged that the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 744 of 2024 and W.P. (Cr.) No. 825 of 2024 prepared a deed in respect of land and a furnace in their favour. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has taken W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 3 cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406/465/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the writ petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the sale deed bearing number 1273 dated 16.02.2010 (copy of which is kept at annexure-7 of this writ petition) that though nowhere it has specifically been mentioned in the complaint but it is apparent that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have forged the deed no. 1273 dated 06.02.2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same is a registered deed and the endorsement of the Sub Registrar goes to show that the said Tribhuwan Narayan Singh has admitted execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 744 of 2024. There is no allegation of impersonation, as it is undisputed that the photograph affixed on the sale deed is that of Tribhuwan Narayan Singh. It is next submitted that at the most, the complainant has the option of challenging the validity of the said sale deed subject of course to the limitation, as the sale deed was undisputedly executed on 06.02.2010 and before 24.02.2024, the complainant- respondent no.2 had no grievance in respect of the said sale deed. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner, the question of dishonest misappropriation of any property by the petitioners does not arise. W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar Vs. State of Goa and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0027/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied upon its Judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, para -23 of which reads as under:- “23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question, by way of a registered sale deed. The validity of the registered sale deed has not been challenged before any competent court of law. W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 5 It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still neither the offence punishable under Section 406 nor the offence punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 2752 of 2024 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that certainly the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioners but of course though the learned Magistrate has not found prima facie case against the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code but till today the said order of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the respondent no.2. Hence, it is submitted that both these writ petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 6 offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code are:- (i) There must be an entrustment; (ii) There must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction of any legal contract, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan vs. CBI reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to either of the petitioners of these two writ petitions. So obviously the dishonest misappropriation of the same does not arise. In the absence of any allegation regarding these essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence are:- (i) The accused prepared a false document or electronic record; (ii) He did it with false meaning of written statement for the purpose of fraud or deceit; W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 7 (iii) The document or electronic record was prepared dishonestly or fraudulently; and (iv) He did the same with the intention of causing wrongful gain to someone or wrongful loss to another. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra), a person is said to have made a false document if:- (i) He made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) He altered or tampered with the document; and (iii) He obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of his senses. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation as to which false document has been created by the petitioners. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the false document purported to have been created by the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 744 of 2024 is the registered sale deed, the perusal of the same reveals that the executant of the sale deed appeared before the Sub Registrar for execution of the document. The Sub Registrar is a Public Servant and is expected in normal course of duty, not to admit any instrument for registration and not to register the same once it finds that the person executing the document is not in W.P. (Cr.) No.744 of 2024 With W.P. (Cr.) No.825 of 2024 8 control of his senses. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the sale deed concerned is a registered sale deed, undisputedly the execution of the same was admitted before the Sub Registrar about 14 years before filing of the complaint, this Court is of the considered view that allowing prosecution against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 2752 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, including the order dated 11.06.2024 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406/465/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the writ petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No. 2752 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, including the order dated 11.06.2024 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406/465/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the writ petitioners, is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd January, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-