RAM ASHISH TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, OFFICER IN CHARGE, TATISILWAY P.S. AND RAJENDRA CHATURBEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him and other accused in connection with Tatisilwai PS case No. 3 of 2012 (GR No. 126 of 2012) for offences registered under sections 406/ 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 474/ 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sri S.N. Sikhdar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. It reveals from the FIR that informant Rajendra Chaturvedi was in possession of land measuring 1.55 acres, Plot No. 589, 647, 652 under khata No. 41, P.S. No. 176, situated at village Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, district Ranchi. Friends of the informant introduced him with Swami Baman Deo, resident of Buddha Vihar Road, No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, and told that he is the "Siddha Bhakta" of God and he is also the President of " Maa Tripur Sundari Society". The informant with his son met with the said Baman Deo in his office in the year 2008. At the relevant point of time, two persons namely Ajit Kumar Gupta, son of Sant Vilash Gupta and Dwarika Sahu son of late Sahdeo Sahu, resident of Upkar Nagar, Kadru (Ranchi) were also present. The informant wanted to amend his life towards spirituality for which he consulted said Baman Deo and also gave donation to the tune of Rs. 11,000/ - (rupees eleven thousand). After having contact, said Baman Deo asked the informant about his property lying within the district of Ranchi and told that you always live outside Ranchi and, therefore, there is every chance that your land may be grabbed by land mafia. After the informant was taken in faith, he was asked by Swami Baman Deo to execute a power of attorney and accordingly power of attorney for the land measuring 0.53 acres within plot No. 652 was executed on 19.6.2010 in which Ajit Gupta was the witness. At the instance of Swami Baman Deo, another power of attorney for the land measuring 0.57 acres under plot nos. 647 and 589 was also executed in favour of this petitioner Ramashish Tiwari. Original documents were also taken by said Swami Baman Deo and Ramashish Tiwari (petitioner) on the assurance that the informant shall be paid all valuable consideration received against sale of those land. The informant after execution of power of attorney and handing over original documents of the land mentioned above, went to Mumbai. He was making calls off and on but after some time, the petitioner and the said Swami Baman Deo stopped attending his calls. The informant got worried and sent his son to the office of Swami Baman Deo to meet him, but he was not available and it was told by Ajit Kumar Gupta and Dwarika Sahu that Swami Baman Deo had gone out of station. The informant smelt foul play at the instance of accused persons and he himself visited Ranchi on 19.12.2011 and made inquiries with regard to the land belonging to him. He was surprised to know that the land in question has been transferred to Madhu Sudan Agarwal, son of Jugal Kishore Agarwal through registered deed of sale on 31.10.2011 and said Madhu Sudan Agarwal under conspiracy transferred land through deed No. 26179 dated 8.12.2011 in favour of Phool Kumari Devi, wife of Kashinath Mahato, resident of Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilwai, district Ranchi within one month. When the direction given by the informant was not complied with and he did not receive the sale proceeds against the land belonging to him, he has lodged this case vide Tatisilwai P.S. case no 03 dated 10.1.2012.

(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is a matter of civil dispute between the parties for which no criminal prosecution is maintainable. The informant himself admits that he had executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and Swami Baman Deo and he had also directed him to pay the sale proceeds to Swami Baman Deo to which the petitioner followed. The petitioner has also brought on record certain documents in order to show that the informant was having dispute with regard to said land with Anil Kumar Ojha for which Title Suit No. 131 of 2008 was pending between them. Not only that, one SAR Revision case No. 98 of 2006 was also filed by one Sabru Munda. It is incorrect to say that the consideration amount received against sale of those land was not paid to the informant. The petitioner has relied upon the cases reported in : 2004 (2) JCR 105 (Jhr) Hari Prasad Singhania Vs the State of Jharkhand;, 1985 (2) Cr. 394 (Bheru Singh Vs The State of Rajasthan); : 2007 (2) Eastern Cr. Cas 17 (Pat) Abhiyanta Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd & Ors Vs. State of Bihar; : 2003 (1) Eastern Cr. Cases 442 (Pat) (Smt. Sakuntala Devi Vs State of Bihar and others); : 2009(3) SCC 78 (V Y Jose & another Vs State of Gujarat) and judgment dated 15.05.2012 passed in Cr M.P. No. 743 of 2011 (Dr Munni Devi & ors Vs State of Jharkhand and another).

(3.) IN course of hearing of this case, respondent No. 3 had come to know that the accused persons, including the petitioner, have created some forged documents which also support the contention of the informant made in the FIR. First and the foremost thing is the circumstances under which the informant was introduced with the said accused Swami Baman Deo and how he was impressed upon and later influenced by him is very important. Swami Baman Deo totally influenced the mind of the informant and under that state of mind, he was asked to execute power of attorney as stated above. It is also pointed out by giving all details that Swami Baman Deo had been living in Ranchi with an intention to commit fraud because the actual identity of Swami Baman Deo is Amit Kumar, son of Nageshwar Prasad, PAN No AGOPK8313C. His another PAN No. is AICPJ 3017A which is in the name of his father Nageshwar Prasad. He is having a Bank Account No. 1008097150 in the SBI, HEC, and another Bank Account in AXIS Bank, Ashok Nagar. On this score alone, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel has further pointed out related judgments of the apex court and other High Courts and argued that in such cases where property dispute exists between the parties, the Court has to be very cautious while exercising power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The most important point which is required to be considered is whether the ingredients of section 420/ 406/ 468/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted or not on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each and every individual case. If deceptive intention remains present at the very inception of the agreement, offence punishable under section 420 IPC is attracted. Further more, the land mark judgment of the apex court in the case of Bhajanlal is always considered in such situation and the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Judges are required to be considered. This is not a case of malicious prosecution which is apparent from the averments made in the FIR. Needless to say that the averments made in the written report attracts the ingredients of the offences for which the case has been registered. In this context, the respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of Kurukshetra University Vs State of Haryana reported in : AIR 1977 SC 2229.