RANCHI, India, Aug. 14 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 14:
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.234 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 24.06.2014, the registered power of attorney was executed by the trustees of 'Jamnadas Dharmada trust' in favour of the son of the informant being Dilip Kumar Saw for a total area of 48.36 decimals of land. A sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- was paid as advance between the period 20.01.2009 to 16.06.2014 and the power of attorney was made on 24.06.2014. Prior to executing the general of power of attorney, an agreement for sale of land was also entered into between informant's company namely Panchdev Construction Private Limited and the 'Jamnadas Dharmada trust' represented by the petitioner in capacity of one of its trustees on 26.06.2014. Subsequent to the agreement for sale, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was also paid by the informant company to the 'Jamnadas Dharmada trust' on 13th October, 2014. It is alleged that after receipt of money and agreement, the petitioner being one of the trustees conspired with the co-accused persons including Jeetendra Tibrewal to make the land disputed and the petitioner executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeetendra Tibrewal and by exercising such power conferred upon Jeetendra Tibrewal, he executed sale deed in respect of the land in-question in favour of his wife. There is further allegation that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale dated 09.09.2021 for the sale of 96 Sq.ft. land with the coaccused Kishor Prasad Yadav, out of the said land, in respect of which the agreement for sale was entered into between 'Jamnadas Dharmada trust' and the son of the informant. There is also allegation that the petitioner permitted Pintu Singh to open a shop over the said land in respect of which the agreement was executed on 24.07.2020. Besides, there is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner permitted Suchit Kumar to take care of the property in respect of the said agreement for sale was entered into with the informant's company.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and submits that in the absence of any deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties having been played by the petitioner, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that in the absence of any entrustment of any property or valuables, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is further submitted that at best, it is a case of payment of advance money by the informant's company in respect of an agreement for sale but such payment of advance cannot be termed as entrustment to constitute the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x6mej4bhx8yRHBeJIf3EvaoTu5Sz%2FQdTbOAxEXBPF3bi&caseno=Cr.M.P./1609/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010149322025&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
