Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. and the order dated 19.03.2018 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.146 of 2017 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.187 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.486 of 2016 and also to quash and set aside the order dated 21.06.2025 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meanwhile two witnesses have been examined and the case is next fixed to 31.08.2026 for further evidence of the complainant.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, being members of an unlawful assembly, cut the paddy crop of the complainant and thus committed theft.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the undisputed fact remains that there is land dispute in respect of the place of occurrence land. It is next submitted that after cutting of the paddy by the petitioners on 24.11.2013, the complainant filed Case No.465 of 2013 in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gumla on 28.11.2013 urging upon the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gumla to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 10.12.2013, an inquiry was conducted in that proceeding and it was found that it is the petitioners; who are the second party to the said proceeding, have planted the crop which were cut by them before initiation of the proceeding. Hence, the said the case was dropped. It is then submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that this is a clear cut case of commission of theft by the members of an unlawful assembly and if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety then the offence punishable under Section 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Ekbal Rai & Others vs. Jaldhari Pandey reported in AIR 1972 SC 949 that where the question of possession of land and crop on the date of occurrence is open to doubt, the accused cannot be convicted of theft of crop.

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the complainant filed an application urging upon the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gumla to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and in that proceeding it was found that it is the members of the second party- who are the petitioners herein, who planted the crops. It is the undisputed fact that subsequently in the year 2017, the complainant had filed a suit for partition being Original Suit No.27 of 2017 inter alia against the co-accused Ram Bilash Sahu who has since been deceased and the petitioners are the descendants of Ram Bilash Sahu. So, it is the admitted case of even the complainant that the place of occurrence land, at least till 2017, was a joint family property. It is needles to mention that it is the settled principle of law that in a joint family property the possession of one coparcener amounts to possession of another coparcener.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that since the question of possession of the land is not exclusive of the complainant and the question of possession of land and crop on the date of occurrence is open to doubt; so even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still offence punishable under section 379 read with 147 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. and the order dated 19.03.2018 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.146 of 2017 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.187 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.486 of 2016 and also the order dated 21.06.2025 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code; be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R. and the order dated 19.03.2018 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.146 of 2017 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.187 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.486 of 2016 and also the order dated 21.06.2025 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code; are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.