[ 2025:JHHC:32497] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2019 1. Baraik Krishnadeo Singh aged about 42 years S/o Late Braj Kishore Singh, resident of village Karaundi, P.O. and P.S. Gumla. District-Gumla. 2. Ashok kumar Singh aged about 38 years son of Sri Indar Singh, resident of village Murli Bagicha Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla. ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Baraik Jai Kishore Singh son of Late Ishwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Karaundi, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Azeeumuddin, Addl. PP For the opp. Party no. 2 : Mr. Mohit Prakash , Adv. 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 CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 01.10.2018 passed by learned CJM, Gumla in Complaint Case no. 111 of 2018 by which, learned CJM, Gumla has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 120B of the IPC. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners being the agnates of the complainant, have sold two and half decimals of land of the complainant, to the wife of the petitioner no. 2- who has since died and consequent upon that, mutation of the said land has been done in the name of the wife of the petitioner no. 2. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on Solemn [ 2025:JHHC:32497] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2019 Affirmation and the statement of the Inquiry Witnesses, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has found the prima facie case for the offences, as already indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another reported (2023) 15 SCC 135, submits that in para 21 thereof it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that as the respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already resorted to the available civil remedy, the High Court could have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent the abuse of process of court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheyshyam and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported 2024 SSC OnLine SC 2311, submits that in para 13 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that, civil wrong cannot be given criminal colour, in order to coerce the appellant for registering the sale and the judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce specific performance of an agreement. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false and the complaint –opp. party no. 2 himself committed fraud and managed, forged and fabricated illegal sale deed no. 826 of 1986 but no mutation has been allowed on the basis of the said alleged deed. 6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant first filed Complaint Case No. 202 of 2014 which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and basing upon which, the police registered Gumla P.S. case no. 255 of 2014 but after investigation of the case, the I.O. submitted Final Form exonerating the accused person; because of lack of evidence. The complainant- opp. party no. 2 filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 in the court of learned Sub-Judge, I, Gumla which has been dismissed by learned Sub-Judge I, Gumla vide the judgment dated 03.07.2025. [ 2025:JHHC:32497] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2019 It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has been filed for wrecking vengeance and to harass the petitioners and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which, prima facie case has been found by learned CJM, Gumla. It is lastly submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC are :- (i) deceit i.e. dishonest or fraudulent mis-representation, (ii) inducing the person deceived, to part with property, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narain Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2003 3 SCC 641. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case there is no allegation against the petitioners of playing deception or inducing anybody deceived, to part with any property. Under such circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in its entirety still the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 465 and 467 of IPC are concerned; to constitute the said two offences, the offence of forgery, that is creation of a false document, as mentioned in section 464 of IPC is essential. Now coming to the facts of the case there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of creating any false document and the only allegation against the petitioner no. 1 [ 2025:JHHC:32497] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2019 is that even though he was not competent and he was not the owner of the property but he has sold the property to the wife of the petitioner no. 2 claiming to be the owner of the property. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 6 Supreme 477, in case a person sells a property without having the title, it is the purchaser who can raise grievance but a third party to such transaction cannot prosecute such a person. Now the purchaser is the wife of the petitioner no. 2 and neither the petitioner no. 2 nor his wife at any point of time had any grievance against the rest of the petitioners during his lifetime. 11. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in its entirety, petitioners have committed neither the offence punishable under Section 465 nor the offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 120 B of the IPC is concerned, as has already been indicated above. since none of the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 465 of IPC or 467 of IPC is made out, so obviously, the materials in the record is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC; even if the entire allegations are considered to be true in its entirety. 13. Considering the facts of the case, coupled with the fact that the complainant has already lost the Title Suit no. 11 of 2006 against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint case has been filed for wrecking vengeance by giving the cloak of a criminal case to a purely civil dispute, prior to filing of this complaint. Hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 01.10.2018 in connection with Complaint Case no. 111 of 2018 be quashed and set aside. [ 2025:JHHC:32497] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1703 of 2019 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 01.10.2018 in connection with Complaint Case no. 111 of 2018, is quashed and set aside. 15. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted vide order dated 05.03.2025, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 16th October, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 31.10.2025