[2026:JHHC:19235] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1969 of 2020 ------ 1. Umesh Sharma @ Umesh Chandra Sharma, son of Mani Lal Sharma, Aged about 50 years, R/o Gomdidih, Chas, P.O. Chas, P.S. Muffassil, District Bokaro; 2. Vivek Sharma, S/o Shakti Pad Sharma, Aged about 28 years, R/o Chamsobad, P.O. Khamarbedi, P.S. Muffassil, District Bokaro; 3. Arti Devi, W/o Late Adhir Banerjee, Aged about 68 years, R/o Village Pathuria, Jaridih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, District Bokaro; 4. Samir Kumar Supakar, S/o Late Binod Chandra Supakar, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Sonardih, P.O. Malkera, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad; 5. Nitu Supakar, W/o Samir Kumar Supakar, Aged about 44 years, R/o Village Sonardih, P.O. Malkera, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad; 6. Bulurani Supakar, W/o Late Binod Chandra Supakar, Aged about 70 years, R/o Village Sonardih, P.O. Malkera, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad 7. Nimay Sharma, S/o Late Arjun Nath Sharma, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village Chamsobad, P.O. Khamarbedi, P.S. Muffassil, District Bokaro; … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY [2026:JHHC:19235] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 By the Court:- I.A. No.8111 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer to remove the name of the opposite party No.2 namely Manik Lal Sharma as the opposite party No.2 has died during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this interlocutory application be allowed. 3. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State has no objection to the prayer of the petitioners. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer of the petitioners made in this interlocutory application is allowed. 5. The Registry is directed to delete the name of the opposite party No.2 namely Manik Lal Sharma from the array of the opposite parties in the cause title of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with red ink and re-number the State of Jharkhand as sole opposite party of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 6. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.1969 of 2020 1. 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 the entire criminal proceedings [2026:JHHC:19235] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 arising out of Chas (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2023 including the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in the said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the case is next fixed to 05.08.2026 for consideration of framing of charge. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.3 and 6 have sold the land belonging to the informant to the petitioner No.1 and 2 with connivance of the rest of the petitioners. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Chas (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the offences as already indicated above and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance against the petitioners of the said offences. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies 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, para-20 of which reads as under:- “20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently [2026:JHHC:19235] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.” and submits that since the informant is not a party to the sale- deed executed by the petitioner No.3 and 6 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2; so, by no stretch of imagination, the informant can pursue the case against the petitioners. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next submits that there is no allegation against any of the petitioners of either deceiving the informant or making him part with any property; which are the two essential ingredients to commit the offence of cheating and in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), since there is no impersonation of the petitioner No.3 and 6; so, it cannot be said that the offence of cheating is made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety. 7. In this respect, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to para-13 and 16 of the said judgement, which reads as under:- “13. The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the [2026:JHHC:19235] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.” Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is, in fact, made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. 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 the informant is not a party to the sale- deed executed by the petitioner No.3 and 6 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, therefore, in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), the informant has no locus standi to institute the case of cheating against the petitioners. [2026:JHHC:19235] 6 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 10. So far as the forgery is concerned, since there is no impersonation of the petitioner No.3 and 6 in executing the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2; in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence of forgery is not made out against the petitioners in this case. There is neither any allegation of entrustment of any property to any of the petitioners by the informant or by anyone else nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property against the petitioners; hence, in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners even with the aid of Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In view of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is made out against the petitioners even after the entire allegations made against them are considered to be true in their entirety. Therefore, 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 and at best, this is a civil dispute between the parties and a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioners for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. So, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas (Muffassil) [2026:JHHC:19235] 7 Cr. M.P. No.1969 of 2020 P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2023, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2023, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 14. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, pending I.A. No.474 of 2023 and I.A. No.7821 of 2022 is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of July 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 03/07/2026