[2025:JHHC:37801 ] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2642 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2642 of 2017 1. Probir Kumar Sur, son of Sri Amal Kumar Sur, 2. Parimal Sur, son of late Mriganka Mohan Sur, 3. Shyamal Sur, son of late Mriganka Mohan Sun, All residents of 163 A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. and District- Kolkata (W.B.) ..... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shyam Sundar Manmohan, son of late Chhedi Ram, resident of Village Bhandaridih, Post office, Giridih, police station Giridih (T) District Giridih (Jharkhand) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin , Addl. PP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Tarun Kumar no. 1, 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 in connection with Complaint Case no. 1853 of 2013 which upon being referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC, Giridih (T) P.S. case no. 127 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 1050 of 2017 involving the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 323 and 379 of the IPC, has been registered. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation of the case is going on and the chargesheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have created a false document in shape of a power of attorney and have committed forgery by using the forged registered general power [2025:JHHC:37801 ] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2642 of 2017 of attorney for creating forged sale deed in illegal and wrong manner. There is also allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the son of the informant and causing hurt to him. There is further allegation against the petitioner no. 1 of committing theft of Rs. 1000/- from the pocket of the shirt of the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to institution of the Complaint Case no. 1853 of 2013 which upon being referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC, Giridih (T) P.S. case no. 127 of 2017 has been registered, the informant –complainant filed Title Suit no. 107 of 2013 against the petitioners as well as other persons in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Giridih with the prayer inter alia for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and other consequential reliefs. 6. It is next submitted that on 09.06.2014, the plaintiff of that suit as well as the defendant no. 6 of that suit, were present in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. - I, Giridih and a joint compromise petition was filed by both the parties. On 29.05.2014, the same was taken up by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div. I, Giridih. The compromise petition was allowed and a decree was prepared on the basis of the compromise. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon 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 submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated that it has time and again, drawn the attention to the growing tendency of the complainant attempting to give the cloak of criminal offence to the matters, which are essentially and purely civil in nature. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs State of Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, and submits that therein, the Hon’ble [2025:JHHC:37801 ] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2642 of 2017 Supreme Court of India has held that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious and this power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 9. It is next submitted, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Khalid Khan vs, State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 679 that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that when civil suit is pending, where the ownership of the property has to be decided in the pending suit, as the same is the subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil litigation, criminal proceeding cannot be primarily prosecuted, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 10. Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the O.P.No. 2, on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the undisputed fact remains that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing forgery by creating a forged power of attorney and on the basis of the same, forged Sale deed has also been created. It is next submitted that there is also allegation against the petitioner of causing hurt to the informant and his son and also committing theft of Rs. 1000/-. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that if the allegations made in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences for which the FIR has been registered, is in fact being made out. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that merely because a civil dispute exists between the parties that will not debar a criminal prosecution; if from the same cause of action, a criminal offence is also made out against the accused persons of the criminal case. It is next submitted that admittedly, there is no civil dispute pending between the parties; rather the informant has admitted [2025:JHHC:37801 ] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2642 of 2017 the title and possession of the complainant-informant over the suit land, so that only magnifies the offence committed by the petitioners, of committing forgery in order to dishonestly mis- appropriate the property of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing forgery by creating false document in the shape of power of attorney and using the said forged document, further creating forged sale deed. There is also allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to the informant and his son by assaulting them and also committing theft of Rs. 1000/- from the pocket of the shirt of the informant and if these allegations are considered to be true in their entirety, then this court has no hesitation in holding that the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 467, 323 and 379 of IPC. Further there are other allegations also and the case is at the stage of investigation, So keeping in view the caution advocated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs State of Uttarakhand & Others (supra) that while exercising the power under section 482 of CrPC, the High Court has to be cautious, this court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. 1853 of 2013 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 1st December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 22.12.2025