( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2025 Balram Gorai, aged about 59 years, son of Late Amar Gorai, resident of House No. 62, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. –Govindpur, District –Dhanbad. .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 202 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on at present and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused –Rajiv Ranjan in respect of his land bearing Mouza No. 89, Gairabad ( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 Khata No. 271, Plot No. 220 by mentioning that the said land corresponds to new Khata No. 273 of Plot No. 220 in the power of attorney executed by him. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Circle Officer, Govindpur vide letter no. 403 dated 11.04.2025, which is part of the F.I.R. has categorically mentioned that the previous Khatiyan pertaining to New Khata No. 271 is not available in the Circle Office but the present Khatiyan indicates that Khata No. 271 is recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and in the online entry, Khata No. 273, Plot No. 220, area 4.10 acres is shown to be the land of Amarchand Gorai, who happens to be the father of the present petitioner and after the death of Amarchand Gorai in the year 2010, the present petitioner has inherited his property. It is then submitted that the Old Khata No.50 was existing in Thana No. 89, Mouza Bhelatand and the same was recorded in the name of Anabad Gairmajarua and even the Khatiyan and various mutations by virtue of which the land is shown to be the property of the ancestors of the petitioner, which was the land pertaining to Raiyati Khatiyan and as such, the petitioner never forged or fabricated any such document when the new Khatiyan was prepared. It is next submitted that it has not been mentioned as to the which particular document; petitioner has forged. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entry ( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 in the Record of Right cannot confer any right, title and interest over the land in question and in case of any dispute, it is for the competent civil court to decide the right, title and interest of the owner of any piece of land. It is next submitted that rent receipts pertaining to the land under Khata No. 50, Mouja –Bhelatand, Thana No. 89 has continuously been issued in favour of the father of the petitioner –Amarchandra Gorai since 1988. It is then submitted that, by his letter dated 27.09.2022, the Circle Officer has intimated the Additional Collector that the land situated at Mouza Bhelatand, Mouza No. 89, previous Survey Khata No. 50, Plot No. 236 is the land belonging to Pahalwan Gorai and this Khata Number has subsequently been converted to Khata No. 273 in the recent survey and Plot No. 220, having an area of 4.10 acre and online Jamabandi has also been opened. 6. Drawing attention of this Court to annexure-4 which is the photocopy of the Jamabandi Praman Patra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same has been issued to the effect that Jamabandi of the land situated at Mauza Bhelatand, Thana No. 89, recent Khata No. 273, recent Plot No. 220, area 4.10 acre is still running in the name of Raiyat Amarchand Gorai and the said land is the land of Raiyati Khata. It is next submitted that the only basis to register the present case is the present Survey Report which indicates the number of Khatas pertaining to Mouza Bhelatand is 272 but the petitioner cannot be faulted for creation of Khata No. 273 nor the same is alleged against the petitioner as ( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 in fact the same is continuation of enjoyment by the petitioner, by way of inheritance from his ancestors and thus, the petitioner and prior to him his ancestors have been in possession of the said land. It is then submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner has created any Revenue Record or tampered with any Revenue Record and admittedly there is no old record in the office of the Circle Officer or in the Settlement Office to indicate that from which Khatiyan, the present Khata No. 271 has been created. It is next submitted that this case has been instituted on the basis of surmises and presumption. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation of creation of any false document, the offences punishable under Section 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation of any entrustment or dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property against the petitioner, hence in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of cheating or dishonestly inducing anybody to part with any property and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable ( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner of creating any false document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed. Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 observed that a person is said to have made a false document if :- (i) He made a false document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else or; (ii) He alters or tamper with the document or; (iii) He obtained a document by practicing deception, from a person not in control of his senses. 11. In the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relying upon the explanation -2 to Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code further clarified that for constituting an offence of forgery, it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. ( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of forging any particular document and in any specific manner. There is no allegation of any fraudulent or dishonest intention against the petitioner. If the petitioner is not the owner of the property but he has sold the property to someone then as per the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (supra), it is the person in whose favour such sale deed is executed is the aggrieved person and he can only set the law in motion. There is no material in the record to suggest that the purchasers of the property of the petitioner by way of registered sale deeds which were executed by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner have any grievance against the petitioner. Further, as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation of entrustment of any property or dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property against the petitioner. 13. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations are considered to be true, none of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. of the case has been registered is made out. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 202 of 2025, registered for the ( 2025:JHHC:30932 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2025 offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 202 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-