(2026:JHHC:21704) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1311 of 2023 1. Prabhat Kumar Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Dharmjeet Singh, resident of Village-Baghima, Ambatoli, P.O.-Baghima, P.S.-Palkot, Dist.-Gumla 2. Karma Ram, aged about 41 years, son of late Ramdas Ram, resident of Village-Belahathi, Bhandra, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, Dist.-Khunti 3. Ravindra Ram, aged about 40 years, son of Ghumeshwar Ram, resident of Village-Bagru, P.O.-Belwadag, P.S.-Khunti, Dist.-Khunti .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raj Kishor Ram, son of late Ranjit Mahto, resident of Datiya, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti & Dist.-Khunti …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022, whereby and where under, learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance against the petitioners (2026:JHHC:21704) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is next fixed to 10.09.2026 for consideration of discharge petition. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in capacity of power of attorney holder of the co-accused Ganpait Mahto have sold the land, the ownership of which is claimed by the informant-complainant to the co-accused-Anil Ram. There is further allegation that forgery has been committed in preparation of Aadhar Card and Pan Card by Ganpait Mahto by which he has been shown to be the son of Faijan Mahto and grandson of Aghnu Mahto, the recorded tenant. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to paragraph nos. 103 and 106 of the case diary that Bhokra Sahu is the step father of the petitioners and his original father is Faijan Mahto and mother of Ganpait Mahto namely Chanda Devi was kept by Bhokra Sahu, as his wife, after death of his first wife and by the time Bhokra Sahu kept Chando Devi @ Chanda Devi- the mother of Ganpait Mahto, Ganpait Mahto was already born and accompanied Chando Devi @ Chanda Devi to the house of Bhokra Sahu. So, it is crystal clear that Bhokra Sahu is not the original father of Ganpait Mahto. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the most Ganpait Mahto can be said to have committed any forgery as stated in paragraph no.4 of the complaint of Complaint (2026:JHHC:21704) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 Case No. 78 of 2022 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti; which upon being forwarded to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Khunti P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 has been registered but no offence is made out against the petitioners as the only allegation against them is that they are the power of attorney holder of Ganpait Mahto and in that capacity, executed sale deed in favour of co-accused-Anil Ram. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of cheating the informant-complainant or anyone else. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 and submitted that in paragraph no.25 of which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took note of its own judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors and deprecated the efforts to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution and also observed the same that the same shall be discouraged. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Prasad Sinha vs. The (2026:JHHC:21704) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2026:JHHC:12038 wherein, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, paragraph no. 23 to 25 of which reads as under:- “A clarification 23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. 24. The term ‘fraud’ is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of ‘fraud’ is “deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage”. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines ‘fraud’ with reference to a party to a contract. 25. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression ‘defraud’ thus “The expression “defraud” involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.” The above definition was in essence reiterated in State of UP vs. Ranjit Singh - 1999 (2) SCC 617.” (Emphasis supplied) (2026:JHHC:21704) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 and submits that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain manner has held that if a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating but a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. 8. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case Anil Ram is the purchaser of the property and Ganpait Mahto is the seller of the property and the petitioners is only the power of attorney holder. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Anil Ram has no grievance against the petitioners and the complainant is the stranger to the transaction of sale between Ganpait Mahto and Anil Ram through the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has already filed Original Suit No. 43 of 2022 before the Civil Judge-I (Senior Division), Khunti which is still pending. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that in paragraph no. 84 of the case diary, it has been (2026:JHHC:21704) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 mentioned that one Shankar Mahto brought genealogical table to the ward counsellor of Ward No.4 of Khunti Notified Area Council and she signed the genealogical table in a hurry, which goes to show that forgery has been committed. It is next submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, then all the offences in respect of which learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti has taken cognizance against the petitioners is in fact being made out. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the only allegation against the petitioners are that they being the power of attorney holder of the co-accused-Ganpait Mahto, has executed the power of attorney on his behalf in favour of Anil Ram and Anil Ram who is the purchaser of the property has no grievance against the petitioners or the co-accused-Ganpait Mahto. The petitioners are not the party to the said sale deed. 11. Assuming for the sake of argument that Ganpait Mahto is not the owner of the property but claims to be the owner of the property and has executed the sale deed and even if the same is true then such sale deed will not confer any right, title and interest over the property to Anil Ram. In paragraph no.4 of the complaint which upon being forwarded to police under Section 156(3) of (2026:JHHC:21704) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 Cr.P.C., the FIR has been registered, there is specific allegation against the co-accused-Ganpait Mahto of creating a forged Aadhar Card and Pan Card by falsely showing himself to be the son of Faijan Mahto. In paragraph no. 103 of the case diary which is the statement of a witness of the village where Ganpait Mahto now ordinarily resides and paragraph no.106 of the case dairy which is the certificate given by the Inspector I/C, Hatibari Police Station in the District of Sundargarh Odisha; goes to show that though Ganpait Mahto is the son of Chando Devi @ Chanda Devi and Chando Devi @ Chanda Devi used to live with Bhokra Sahu along with Ganpait Mahto after the death of his first wife of Bhokra Sahu. By such time, Ganpait Mahto was already born and Bhokra Sahu is not the original father of Ganpait Mahto. Paragraph no.84 of the case diary goes to show that it is Shankar Mahto who was instrumental in creating genealogical table prepared by ward councillor of Ward No.4 of Khunti Notified Area Committee. 12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, at the most Anil Ram could have claimed that he has been cheated but certainly since the complainant is the third party to the transaction between Ganpait Mahto and Anil Ram through the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, the complainant can claim to have been cheated. 13. In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of (2026:JHHC:21704) 8 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 Bihar & Anr. (supra), the complainant cannot make any complaint of being cheated against the petitioners. 14. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the common ingredient to constitute such offences is forgery i.e. creation of a false document. There is specific allegation in paragraph no.4 of the complaint which upon being forwarded to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the FIR has been registered that it is Ganpait Mahto who prepared the false document. There is no allegation in the complaint or in the case diary that the petitioners were in any way involved in committing any forgery. The contents of paragraph nos. 103 and 106 of the case dairy shows that Bhokra Sahu was not the original father of Ganpait Mahto. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners even with the aid of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety, sill none of the offence in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti is made out hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners (2026:JHHC:21704) 9 Cr.M.P. No.1311 of 2023 will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the learned I/C Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 18. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd July, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 23/07/2026