Vijay Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand

By the Court:-

Heard the parties.

This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the First Information Report of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the owner of a land deceived the informant and her husband who has since been deceased, by making them believe that co-accused-Ananta Das is the owner of the land and the petitioner is power of attorney holder of Ananta Das and by so deceiving induced the informant and her husband to part with huge amount of consideration money and executed a sale deed in favour of the informant; though knowing themselves pretty well yet suppressing the fact from the informant that Ananta Das is not the owner of the land rather Yugal Kishore Das is the owner of the land and that Ananta Das is not the legal heir of Yugal Kishore Das.

On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Adityapur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on.

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code cannot simultaneously be made out for a particular offence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant-respondent no.2 was required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation; of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the property concerned. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as in this case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had intention to cheat the informant and her husband since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, so, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the undisputed fact remains that co-accused-Ananta Das of whom the petitioner is the power of attorney holder is not the owner of the property which has been sold by way of registered sale deed to the informant, by the petitioner, by claiming Ananta Das to be the owner of the property. It is next submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that as since the beginning of the transaction the petitioner and Ananta Das both were aware that Ananta Das is not the owner of the property so the corollary is that the petitioner and the co-accused-Ananta Das since the beginning of the transaction had the intention of cheating the informant and her husband and the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner if the allegations against him are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, it is submitted that the criminal proceeding at this nascent stage ought not to be quashed and this criminal miscellaneous petition 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 held that if a person being not the owner of a property executes a sale deed in favour of a purchaser claiming to be the owner of the property, then the purchaser can prosecute the vendor for the offence inter alia of cheating.

In view of the settled principle of law and the fact that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner and the co-accused-Ananta Das were knowing pretty well that Ananta Das was not the owner of the property in question, have deceived the informant and her husband and induced them to part with huge amount of money, so, the allegation if are considered to be true in their entirety, the same is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no rhyme and reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash the First Information Report of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2023 at this nascent stage when the investigation of the case is still going on at present.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.