IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1638 of 2016 --- Chandra Shekhar Pradhan son of late Atal Pradhan resident of village Asangi, PO Adityapur Industrial Area, PS R.I.T., District Saraikella-Kharsawan … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P. For the Complainant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate --- 7/08.09.2016 Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State as well Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella in Adityapur (R.I.T.) P. S. Case No. 364 of 2015 by which proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued.
3. Earlier an interlocutory application was preferred by the petitioner bearing I.A. No. 4606 of 2016 which was allowed vide order dated 27.07.2016 and the petitioner was permitted to challenge the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Adityapur (R.I.T.) P. S. Case No. 364 of 2015 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire dispute is civil in nature as the allegation which had been made in the complaint petition which was initially filed was with respect to taking an advance of Rs. 1,01,000/- as part consideration amount and entering into an agreement, but subsequently not executing the sale deed as has been agreed upon between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that even in course of investigation no evidence has surfaced with respect to any criminal act on the part of the petitioner to constitute an offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the agreement was entered into in the year 2007, whereas complaint -2- petition was instituted in the year 2015 without giving any reasonable explanation for the delay.
5. Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned A.P.P. has referred to the case diary and has stated that subsequently in the year 2008, the same plot of land was sold to Vivekanand Pradhan which itself shows the intention of the petitioner. She has further submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of taking advance consideration amount and thereafter not executing the sale deed, as would be evident from paragraph 47 of the case diary.
6. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has stated that in the complaint petition, it has clearly been mentioned that the agreement entered into with respect to the land did not ever belong to the petitioner. It has been submitted that in spite of entering into an agreement and taking advance consideration amount, neither the sale deed was executed nor was the petitioner given the delivery of the land in question and the same would definitely constitute an offence under Section 406 & 420 of I.P.C. It has been submitted that instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant/informant, petitioner sold it to another person in the year 2008 which itself shows the mala-fide act on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was being persuaded to execute the sale deed which caused the delay in instituting the complaint case.
7. The allegations in gist in complaint petition which was initially instituted was for breach of an agreement which was entered into between the firm of the informant with respect to purchase of 123 decimals of land belonging to the petitioner for which an advance consideration amount at the rate of Rs. one lac amounting to Rs. 1,01,000/- was given to the petitioner. Allegations have been made that the sale deed was never executed in favour of M/s. Shashank Nidhi & Associates in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant of making payment of the balance consideration amount and the possession of the land was also never delivered in favour of the complainant.
8. The complaint petition was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which resulted in institution of Adityapur (R.I.T.) P. S. Case No. 364 of 2015 in which after investigation the police has found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. -3- It is an admitted fact that the agreement was entered into in the year 2007 and the complaint petition has been instituted in the year 2015 and the delay in instituting the complaint has never been explained by the complainant in the said petition. Although, counter affidavit has been filed by the complainant/informant with respect to the subsequent development which had taken place after entering into an agreement with the petitioner with respect to selling of the same piece of land to another person in the year 2008, but the same would not carry much weight as the same does not constitute the allegations made in the complaint petition and even if what has been stated by the complainant is taken to be true, he could have immediately filed a complaint case or could have taken recourse to any other proceedings. The complainant has remained silent for about 8 years and even in spite of filing the complaint case after such a prolonged delay, no mention has been made with respect to the sale of same piece of land to another person by the petitioner in the complaint petition. The investigation into the offence which culminated in submission of charge-sheet was perhaps having been influenced by the selling of the same piece of land to a third person in the year 2008. The subsequent agreement entered into by the petitioner since being not a part of the allegations made in the complaint petition never forms the basis for dismissing the present application as the complaint petition is silent with respect to the said allegation. As has been stated above, the allegations are only concentrated with respect to the non-execution of the sale deed and non-delivery of the said land in favour of the complainant. It is not in dispute that an act of a person may invite a civil wrong as well as criminal consequence, but the fact situation of the present case do suggest that the only remedy which was perhaps available to the complainant was to move the civil court by filing an appropriate application. The allegation as it is invites at best civil consequences and there being no criminal element present to prosecute the petitioner, this application is fit to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, while allowing this application, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Adityapur (R.I.T.) P. S. Case No. 364 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1031 of 2015 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella is hereby quashed and set aside. -4- 10. Since the entire criminal proceeding itself has been quashed, the prayer of the petitioner with respect to the issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has becomes redundant. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3