- (1.) THE petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in the Court of Sri P.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and also order of cognizance dated 4.3.2002 whereby cognizance of offences under Section 468/ 420/120 -B, IPC has been taken against the petitioners in complaint case No. 901 of 2001. Primary grounds advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that dispute relating to the joint ancestral Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India properties between the petitioners and the complainant No. 2, who are cousins, is purely of civil nature and even on reading the entire allegations in the complaint petition filed by complainant. no criminal offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners and therefore the continuance of the proceedings against them is misuse of the process of the Court.
(2.) FACTS of the cage constituting the background may be mentioned briefly as follows : The case against the petitioners was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite -party No. 2 on the allegation that the land under khata No. 24, plot No. 2541 comprising of 1.86 acres of land situated at village Hardari, P.S. Ichak, Dist. Hazaribagh, was ancestral property of the complainant and the accused petitioners. A tile suit, being T.S. No. 773 of 1965 was decreed in favour of the complainant and in which his share in the ancestral property was apportioned. Appeal preferred by the defendants, namely, the petitioners herein, against the decree passed in Title Suit No. 773 of 1965 was dismissed. It is stated that the complainant had come into occupation and possession of the land apportioned to him and likewise the accused persons had also come into possession of their respective shares in the aforesaid ancestral property. Later, the accused petitioners executed a sale -deed in favour of the complainant in respect of a portion of the same land by representing that they are owners of the land and had authority to sell the same. The complainant had paid consideration amount of Rs. 15,000/ - to the petitioners. Subsequently, the complainant received a legal notice issued by the petitioners declaring that the sale -deed was cancelled by them and calling upon the complainant to receive back the consideration amount. It is further contended that the complainant had verified from the registry office that the petitioners had executed similar sale -deeds in favour of other persons in respect of different portions of land under khata No. 24, plot No. 2541 without any legal authority and by making false representation before the purchasers of being owners and of having authority to sell the lands. The complainant has claimed that the petitioners had executed a fraudulent deed of sale in hie favour and by false representation and dishonest intention, they have induced the complainant to deliver the sum of rupees fifteen thousand to them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners points out that the aforesaid assertion of the complainant even if accepted, amply bears out that there was no dishonest intention whatsoever on the part of the petitioners to cheat the complainant and the statements contained in the complaint petition suggests that the petitioners were under bona fide belief that they were legal owners of the land in respect of which sale -deed was executed in favour of the complainant, but when they realized their mistake, they promptly cancelled the sale -deed calling upon the complainant to receive back the consideration amount paid by him. Learned counsel submits that in such view of the matter, no criminal offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the opposite -party No. 2 as also the counsel for the State submits that the very fact that the petitioners had executed the sale -deed despite the fact that they were not legal owners of the land in question and, therefore they had no legal authority to execute such document and to receive any money from the purchased as the consideration for the same, completes the offence both under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, there appears no impropriety in the order of cognizance taken by the learned Court below against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences.
(3.) INHERENT powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reserved in this Court and is meant to prevent injustice and abuse of process of law, but the power is to be exercised with restraint and only where it is the demand of justice. Normally, where an order of cognizance is challenged and called upon to be quashed, this Court in exercise of its power needs to adopt a cautious approach. In the case of Medchi Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. V/s. Biological E Limited, reported in 2000(2) East Cr C 524 (SC), it has been held that the complaint has to be examined as a whole without going into the merits of the allegations made therein and if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of offences alleged against the accused, the Court should not quash the complaint, but if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improper, the Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. It has further been held that in a case where allegations are under Sections 415, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence. The intention of the accused persons therefore needs to be examined from the allegations made in the complaint.;