NIRMAL KEDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 1.3.2005, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal took cognizance under section 120B, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC in P.C.R. Case No. 249 of 2004. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of entire subsequent proceeding in the aforesaid case.

(2.) IT is alleged that the O.P. No. 2 and his brothers had purchased some lands (details of which given in the complaint petition) from one Baijnath Kedia through different sale deeds. It is further alleged that on 16.01.1978 said lands were given to Baijnath Kedia on lease for constructing washing plant of Karnpura Mining Corporation. It is further stated that later on as per the Will of Baijnath Kedia the said Karnpura Mining Corporation came in the share of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 made attorney of the properties of petitioner no. 2. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 and 2 have knowledge regarding the properties and lands of complainant (O.P. No. 2). It is further alleged that in the year 2004, all the accused persons hatched a conspiracy to grab the land of O. P. No. 2 and his brothers and in pursuance of aforesaid conspiracy a deed of sale bearing sale deed no. 2080 dated 10.6.2004 executed by the petitioner no. 1 and 2 in favour of other accused persons named in the complaint petition. It is alleged that in the said sale deed the lands of complainant (O.P. No. 2) also included though the petitioners have no power to sale the aforesaid lands. It is further alleged that the complainant (O.P. No. 2) had requested the petitioners to amend the aforesaid sale deed by deleting his lands but the petitioners did not give any heed to his request, therefore the present complaint has been filed.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the complaint petition, O.P. No. 2 has admitted that in the will executed by Baijnath Kedia, the entire property belonging to the Karnapura Mining Corporation allocated in the share of petitioner no. 2 of which petitioner no. 1 is the attorney. It is submitted that on the basis of aforesaid will the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had issued a probate and in that probate, entire land of Karnapura Mining Corporation had come in the share of petitioner no. 2. Under the said circumstance petitioner no. 2 is the owner of the said land. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, the petitioners have absolute right title and interest over the said land and in that capacity they have power to sale it to any body. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter the allegation made by the complainant - opposite party is required to be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the party. It is submitted that the criminal court have no jurisdiction to decide the right, title and interest of the party in connection with land. Accordingly, it is submitted that the initiation of criminal proceeding by learned court below on the basis of complaint petition filed by O.P. No. 2 is an abuse of the process of court.