GHANSHYAM MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the petitioner being an old man, aged 70 years, has prayed for quashing the impugned order of cognizance passed by the court below, under which cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of the I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken against the petitioner alongwith other accused persons and he has been called upon to appear and face trial. Learned counsel adds that even according to the admitted facts, a civil litigation was initiated in respect of the disputed land and on the basis of the decree passed by the competent civil court and pursuant to the execution of the decree, the vendors of the petitioner had obtained possession and occupation of the land and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the present petitioner had a genuine reason to believe in all bona fide good faith that the vendors did possess a valid title over the land in question. It is further submitted that if the complainant was aggrieved, then the appropriate recourse for her remedy was to file a suit before the competent civil court for cancellation of the sale deed under which the land was transferred in favour of the present petitioner". Learned counsel adds that no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner even on the basis of the entire averments contained in the complaint petition and the continuation of the criminal proceedings would therefore, be an abuse of the process of Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand submits that according to the allegations in the complaint petition, it would transpire that the present petitioner in connivance with the accused nos. 1 to 5 had prepared forged and fabricated documents and on the basis of such documents, the sale- deed was executed by the purported vendors of the petitioner in his favour.

(3.) Having made their respective submissions, learned counsel for the parties are not able to inform specifically as to whether the investigation of the case, which was initiated way back after the registration of the case on 20,1.2003, has concluded by now or not.