AMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially this application had been filed for quashing of the first information report of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 107 of 2012 but while the matter was pending for consideration, charge -sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/427/379/420/406/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code was taken vide order dated 24.6.2013, which has been challenged by way of interlocutory application bearing I.A. 8569 of 2013 and, therefore, the prayer made in the interlocutory application be allowed to be incorporated in the main application. Prayer made in the interlocutory application is hereby allowed.

(2.) LET interlocutory application form part of the main application. Aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the prosecution that the informant executed a sale deed with respect to 67 decimals of land in favour of Jahangir alias Ladul and Hamid Khan, accused Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Subsequently, when the informant did find that the accused persons are levelling the land and damaging the houses, which were never the subject matter of sale deed, executed earlier, she made protest over it and then it was declared by accused Nos. 1 and 2 that the land belongs to them, as she has executed a sale deed with respect to that land also and then the informant could know that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 mischievously got the area of the land incorporated in the sale deed as 2.09 acres in place of 67 decimals of land and thereby it has been alleged that the accused persons committed offences of forgery, cheating as well as mischief for damaging the houses but the petitioners have never been alleged to have done anything either for commission of the offence of mischief, assault, theft, cheating or criminal breach of trust but they have been charge -sheeted simply for the reason that it is said that the petitioners were also present in the Registry Office on the day of execution of sale deed by the informant in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2 but the presence of these petitioners would never go to establish the case of conspiracy, as they have never been alleged to have done anything in the matter relating to breach of trust or cheating, but the court below did not take into account all these facts and took cognizance of the offences as aforesaid and thereby it has committed wrong in taking cognizance of the offences.