MD. YASEEN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, CrPC for quashment of the order dated 4th January. 2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder having been found a prima facie case after enquiry under Section 202, CrPC, directed the petitioners and co -accused to stand charge for the offence under Sections 420/465/149, Indian Penal Code. The Opposite Party No. 2 complainant in his complaint against the petitioner and four other persons alleged, inter alia, that land of Khata No. 41, Plot No. 544 measuring area of 4 decimal belonged to his father Habib Mian. Habib Mian had three sons viz. the complainant Abdul Rasid, Md. Afjal and one Niyamat Mian. Niyamat died leaving behind his legal heirs and in that manner all the three sons of Habib Mian had equal shares in 4 decimals of land to the extent of about 1.3 decimals each. On 7.6.2002 the complainant came to learn that his full brother accused No. 1 Afjal with the aid of the petitioners herein and others transferred 6 decimals of land in Plot No. 544 beyond his share by executing sale deed in favour of the accused No. 6 Shakila Khatoon though he had no right and title over the entire land sold by him and in that manner he committed cheating with co -accused in prosecution of common object.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, the petitioners are not the executants of the sale deeds rather, the attesting witnesses on the instrument of transfer. There was no allegation as such in the complaint against them so as to attract offences against the petitioners punishable under Sections 420/465/149, IPC. In the given circumstances as depicted in the complaint the attesting witnesses of the sale deed cannot be saddled with the criminal liability of committing the offence of cheating as both had simply attested the execution and identified the vendor and vendee irrespective of contents recitals of the sale deed.

(3.) FINALLY , it was submitted that the allegation whatever was made out in the Complaint Petition reflected the dispute purely of a civil nature and therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners would amount to miscarriage of justice and the processes issued against them would be the misuse of the process of the Court. On the point of law as well, the learned Counsel submitted that no ingredient for the offence either under Section 420 or 465 was made out against any of the petitioners and their criminal prosecution, therefore, was liable to be quashed. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which speaks: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.