Golak Bihari Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.2346 of 2008, whereby cognizance of offence under Sections 420/406/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken

and the Court below found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no offence is made out, which would be apparent from the complaint petition itself. He submits that

there are no materials to proceed against the petitioners in terms of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is his contention that in absence

of both the aforesaid two ingredients, cognizance should not have been taken in this case and the petitioners should not have been proceeded against.

If at all there is any dispute, the same is civil in nature and no criminality can be attached with the aforesaid act.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by the counsel for the opposite parties, submits that it is a clear cut case of impersonation, which

would be evident from the statement made in the complaint petition. He stated that Kashi Nath Mahato was impersonated and the imposter received

the money for the land transaction. It is submitted that it is these petitioners and others, in connivance have committed the aforesaid act, thus, an

offence is made out for which cognizance was taken.

I have gone through the complaint petition and the statement on solemn affirmation as also the statement of enquiry witnesses.

It is the case of the complainant that a Title Suit No.47 of 2007 was pending in the Court of Sub Judge I, Dhanbad between Raja Golak Bihari Singh

and Kashi Mahato in respect of some land. Accused persons, who are the petitioners, herein, approached the complainant and proposed to sell the

land. Said Kashi Mahato, who was the defendant in Title Suit and claimed to be the owner of the land proposed to sell the land to the complainant.

Golak Bihari Singh, who was the complainant, through his power of attorney, also agreed to sell some part of the land. Sanjay Kumar Sharma was the

power of attorney holder of Golak Bihari Singh. An agreement was entered into between the parties. It is alleged that one Yusuf Ansari being a

broker, was behind the entire transaction. Amount was paid to Sanjay Kumar Sharma and Kashi Mahato on different dates by the complainant. It is

stated that Sanjay Kumar Sharma brought one person, who claimed himself to be Kashi Mahato and in fact he was not. Said imposter received money

also claiming himself to be Kashi Mahato. Sanjay Kumar Sharma also assured that they will get the suit compromised between the parties and a

compromise petition was also filed by the imposter, who claimed himself to be Kashi Mahato. Suspecting foul, the complainant went to the village of

real Kashi Mahato and he came to know that no compromise petition was filed and the petitioners manufactured false documents and cheated the

complainant. On the aforesaid basis complaint petition was filed.

From the aforementioned facts, I find that there is an allegation that an imposter, in connivance with the petitioners, posed himself as Kashi Mahato

and some documents were prepared and the complainant was induced to enter into an agreement and part with his money to purchase piece of land.

The complainant, later on, came to know about the fact that the person, who posed as Kashi Mahato and took money from him, was not the real

Kashi Mahato.

The aforesaid facts, definitely, make out an offence for which cognizance was taken by the Court and the Court proceeded against the petitioners,

who allegedly are part of the conspiracy. It is well settled that when cognizable offence is made out, the Court has to take cognizance of the offence

and proceed. Since an offence is made out in this case, I find no illegality in the order taking cognizance. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this

criminal miscellaneous petition. The criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, dismissed.