AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners, in this criminal miscellaneous petition, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance
dated 27.05.2013, by which cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. Petitioners further pray
to quash the charge, which was framed against the petitioners under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case arises out of an FIR, which was registered under Sections 467/ 468/ 471/ 420/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code being Pakur
Police Station Case No.125 of 2012. The FIR was lodged by the Circle Officer, Pakur. These two petitioners were shown as named accused in the
FIR. In the FIR it has been mentioned that land measuring 7 bighas, 8 kathas, 17 dhurs of Daag No.105 under Mouza Veergopalpur, Jamabandi
No.113 of Revenue Circle Pakur is registered as ANABADI POKHAR in the last survey. According to the report of Shri Vijay Prakash Marandi,
Rajasva Karamchari, Jamabandi does not stand in the name of any raiyat for the said Daag No.105, Jamabandi No.113 under Mouza Veergopalpur. It
has been stated that in such circumstances, post land reforms, the said ANABADI POKHAR registered in the last survey khatiyan is the property of
Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand, over which the villagers of Mouza Veergopalpur have the right of public use. It has been stated that
as per the application received from the villagers of Mouza Veergopalpur, Shri Ayub Ali son of Marhuoom Haji Burhanuddin, resident of Taranagar,
Police Station Pakur (M) by claiming illegal right over ANABADI POKHAR is curtailing the public rights of villagers. It has been mentioned that
according to the information, aforesaid Shri Ayub Ali son of Marhoom Hazi Burhanuddin, resident of Taranagar, Police Station Pakur (M) along with
Shri Parimal Kumar Chakravorty and Shri Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, both sons of Late Shiv Prasad Chakravorty, resident of Rajapara, Police Station
Pakur (Town) have connived with each other with a view to grab the said government pond and have also prepared sale deed which has been
prepared with a view to grab the government property and it is illegal and forged document. It has been mentioned that thus, the seller of sale deed
Shri Parimal Kumar Chakravorty and Shri Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, both sons of late Shiv Prasad Chakravorty, resident of Rajapara, Police Station
Pakur (Town) and the purchaser Shri Ayub Ali son of Marhoom Hazi Burhanuddin, resident of Taranagar, Police Station Pakur (M) in connivance
and under conspiracy are trying to gain illegally for which they are not legally authorized and the villagers are being deprived from their genuine rights
as also causing damage to the government property. It has been mentioned that the act of purchaser and seller for criminally grabbing the government
property with the aid of forged and illegally prepared document is an illegal act.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenging the order taking cognizance, submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners,
which would be apparent from the perusal of the FIR itself. He submits that the property belongs to the petitioners and ignoring this fact, the FIR has
been lodged. He submits that the alleged settlement record dated 04.05.2011 is false and incorrect document and the same was maliciously relied upon
by the authorities, which could not have been done. It is submitted that the name of the Zamindar was not mentioned in respect of plot No.105 of
Khata in Jamabandi No.113. It is submitted that the tank was owned by the grandfather of the present petitioner No.1, who was the Zamindar of
Pakur. It is also submitted that rayati settlement was made by different persons and plot No.291, 434, 305, 123 and 300 and 307 were settled by the
then Zamindar. He submitted that the petitioner No.1 being legal heir was in possession over the tank and has right to transfer the same. He submits
that the petitioners have preferred a Title Suit being Title Suit No.23 of 2013 before the Civil Judge, Pakur. It is submitted that the declaration that the
property belongs to the Government is absolutely illegal and cannot be accepted and thus, the criminal case is absolutely bad. He submits that the
entire allegation is civil in nature and relied upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1004 of 2005, which, after taking
into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others versus State of Bihar and another
[(2009) 8 SCC 751] had quashed the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the case of the petitioners is almost the same,
entire criminal case is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the case of the petitioners stand on a different
footing than that which was subject matter of Cr. M.P. No.1004 of 2005 and that before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that from
perusal of the FIR, offence is made out and thus, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. He submits that after investigation, materials
surfaced, so the petitioners were sought to be proceeded against. He submits that since there are materials against the petitioners, the criminal case
cannot be quashed at the very initial stage.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the FIR, I find that there are allegations against the petitioner of creating forged
documents and grabbing the government property. From the allegations, it is clear that the property of government has been sold fraudulently by the
petitioners. There is an allegation that the documents were prepared giving details of the government land, which could not have been done. There
was intention on part of both the petitioners to cheat the Government by selling the land, which stand recorded in the name of the Government. The
FIR definitely makes out an offence to be investigated.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Teeja Devi alias Triza Devi versus State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221
has held that if the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie, discloses a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can
be done only in the rarest of rare case where the Court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious. In a case where without a thorough
investigation, it is not possible to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant are true or not, the FIR cannot be quashed and investigation
should be allowed to continue.
Further, I find that after investigation chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and the Court below framed charge after finding sufficient
material to proceed against the petitioners. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners is nothing but merely his defence, which cannot be
appreciated at this stage. These defence pleas can very well be appreciated and weighed by the Trial Court, when the materials are placed before the
Court. During course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners referred to several documents, but, this Court feels that this is not the appropriate stage
to look into the documents. The documents can well be appreciated after the proper evidence is led before the Trial Court. It is the Trial Court, who
can assess and evaluate the documents at the stage of trial only after the same are exhibited in evidence. At this stage, no observation can be given on
those documents.
In the facts of the case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners has got no relevance inasmuch in the present case, it is alleged that the
petitioner has sold government property by fraudulent means.
Thus, I find that since offence is made out and there are materials to proceed against the petitioners, the Court below has rightly taken cognizance
and has framed charge against the petitioners.
Thus, there being no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition, the same is, hereby, dismissed.