[2025:JHHC:37772] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2938 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2938 of 2018 ------ 1. Tarun Kumar Rana @ Tarun Rana, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Ajit Kumar Rana 2. Smt. Basanti Rana @ Basanti Rana, aged about 46 years, wife of Sri Tarun Kumar Rana Sl. No. 1 & 2 both residents of Village- Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S.- Bahragora, District- East Singhbhum. 3. Lakhi Kant Mallick @ Laxmi Kant Mallick, aged about 56 years, son of Late Harmohan Mallick 4. Smt. Geeta Mallick @ Geeta Mallick @ Gita Mallick, aged about 45 years, wife of Sri Lakhi Kant Mallick 5. Ashok Kumar Mallick, aged about 54 years, son of Late Harmohan Mallick 6. Smt. Neelu Mallick @ Neelu Mallick @ Nilu Mallick, aged about 43 years, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Mallick Sl. No. 3 to 6 all are residents of Uliyan Basti, Kadma, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, Town – Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. 7. Parimal Kumar Ojha @ Primal Kumar Ojha, aged about 68 years, son of Late Harish Chandra Ojha, resident of Qr. No. 4/B-57, Aditya Syndicate, Near Shahara City, P.O. & P.S.- R.I.T., District- Seraikella Kharsawan. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ajit Kumar Ojha, son of Late Basant Kumar Ojha, resident of Village – Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S.- Baharagora, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate [2025:JHHC:37772] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2938 of 2018 For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (through VC) For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate ------ 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Bahragora P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 293 of 2017 and also to quash the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ghatsila whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ghatsila has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 476, 420, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case and trial is yet to begin. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.7 claiming that the land sold by him has been allotted to him in a family partition, has lawfully sold the land to the petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 6 and the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 are implicated in this case because they are the husband of the petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 6 respectively. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that after purchase, the concerned land has been mutated in favour of the [2025:JHHC:37772] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2938 of 2018 petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 6 respectively and the opposite party No.2 also filed a mutation appeal which is still pending. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the father of the petitioner No.7 and the father of the opposite party No.2 are own brothers. 6. 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, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in para-20 and 23 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically stated that it is only the person who purchases the property, can raise the complaint that the vendor has cheated him and a third party to the transaction, like the informant in this case cannot do the same. It is next submitted that therein, it has also been held that if there is no impersonation of the vendor of the sale deed and if the vendor of the sale deed executes the sale deed claiming to be the owner of the land that will not amount to forgery. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been given to the purely civil dispute to harass the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the materials available in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st [2025:JHHC:37772] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2938 of 2018 Class, Ghatsila. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.7 has made a false averment in the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 6. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), this Court has not hesitation in holding that as there is no allegation against the petitioners of impersonation of the vendor of the sale deed, the offence of forgery is not made out against the petitioners and as the purchaser of the property has no grievance against the vendor, hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners. 9. Similarly, in the absence of commission of the offence of forgery, the offence punishable under Sections 468, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioners and since there is no ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, hence, the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out; more so, in the absence of any other offence made out against the petitioners; in the facts of the case. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the 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 FIR in connection with Bahragora P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 293 of 2017 as well as the [2025:JHHC:37772] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2938 of 2018 order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ghatsila in connection with the said case, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Bahragora P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 293 of 2017 as well as the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ghatsila in connection with the said case, is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of December, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 23/12/2025