2026:JHHC:19135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1040 of 2017 -------- Shanti Singh @ Shanti Kumar Singh, S/o. Gurupad Singh, R/o. Vill.- Kalapathar, P.O.- Chiksiya, P.S.- Chas (M), Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prasad Ram Gorain, S/o. Yugal Kishor Gorain, R/o. Vill.- Kalapathar, P.O.- Chiksiya, P.S.- Chas (M), Dist.- Bokaro. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate C.A.V. On: 17th June, 2026 Pronounced On: 30/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 909 of 2016, whereby and wherein, the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with observation that the allegation reveals against the accused pertains to be case of breach of contract and of civil nature and no ingredients of constituting offences under Section 406, 420, 379, 387, 467 & 120(B) of the I.P.C. is constituted. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complaint case was lodged by the present petitioner stating inter-alia that the 2026:JHHC:19135 2 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1040 of 2017) petitioner’s land is adjacent to the opposite party no. 2 appertaining to Khata No. 27 Plot No. 2481 total Area- 59 decimals situated in Mouja Kalapathar. It is alleged that the opposite party no. 2 was in need of money, so he contacted father of the petitioner and a proposal was made to purchase of 5 decimals of land out of the said 59 decimals from the said plot for consideration amount of Rs. 5,05,000/- (Rupees five lakh five thousand only), which was accepted by father of the petitioner. It is further alleged that an agreement dated 21.02.2014 was entered between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 before the Notary Public and at the time of the said agreement, the petitioner paid Rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the opposite party no. 2 as an advance money and rest amount was to be paid at the time of registry of the land. It is further alleged that the petitioner’s father requested the opposite party no. 2 to register the sale deed but instead of executing the sale deed, he executed “Permanent Nadabi-Patra”, i.e., deed of no objection with money receipt on 07.09.2015 and took the rest balance amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- (rupees three lakh fifty five thousand only) and gave assurance that he would execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner after having partition among the family members of the opposite party no. 2. It was agreed that in case of any dispute or objection, the opposite party no. 2 shall return the entire amount paid to him. It is further alleged that in spite of persistent request made by the father of the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 for registration of sale deed, he lingered in one excuse or another. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2016 at about 10:00 A.M., the opposite party no. 2 alongwith 2026:JHHC:19135 3 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1040 of 2017) other 5-6 persons was measuring the said land, then father of the petitioner requested him to separate his share of the land in the said plot, on this, the opposite party no. 2 alongwith other persons started abusing and assaulting the petitioner and his father and threatened them of dire consequences and also informed that he has already sold the land to one Seema Kumari, wife of Dhananjay Mohan and further demanded three lakh rupees (Rs. 3,00,000/-) to get the same transferred in their name. In the course of said scuffle, the accused also snatched golden chain and Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner and Rs. 500/- from the pocket of the father of the petitioner. 4. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of inquiry witnesses and sworn affirmation of the complainant and after perusal of Notary agreement dated 21.02.2014 annexed with the complaint petition dated 18.10.2016, arrived at definite conclusion that it is a case of simple breach of agreement inviting commission of no offence as alleged in the complaint and dismissed the complaint case. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court without examining the facts and circumstance of the case dismissed the complaint case only on the ground that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence collected during the course of enquiry about incident of assault and forgery committed by accused. It is also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 at the very inception had intention to deceit and defraud the 2026:JHHC:19135 4 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1040 of 2017) petitioner and took the entire consideration money in the name of executing the sale deed but instead of executing the sale deed, executed permanent nadabi patra and committed fraud with the petitioner and misappropriated the entire consideration amount. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is fit to be set aside allowing this revision. Submission on behalf of the Opposite Parties:- 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted with the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the impugned order as it is a case of civil in nature. It is further submitted that in the complaint petition, there is allegation of assault, demand of extortion and commission of theft, but the learned trail court after conducting enquiry into the matter has found nothing against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference as it is based upon unimpeachable evidence available on record and this revision being devoid of merits is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 7. From perusal of the impugned order and averments contained in the complaint petition as well as documents submitted therewith, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. There is no averment attracting the offence under Sections 406 & 420 of the I.P.C. for forgery or fabrication of documents, abuse, assault and theft. Therefore, the recourse taken by the petitioner cannot be justified under law. 2026:JHHC:19135 5 | P a g e (Cr. Revision No. 1040 of 2017) 8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision application, which stands dismissed. 9. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent back through FAX to the concerned Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 30/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 01/07/2026