- (1.) THE . petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance dated 29.1.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi In Complaint Case No. 1017 of 2003, by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 420/467/468/469/471/1208/109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has issued non -bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons. The petitioners case also prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in the Complaint Case No. C -1017/2003 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
(2.) THE complaint has been filed by Gurmit Kaur -opposite party No.2 alleging that she has been residing in her ancestral house situated over Plot No. 933 under Khata No. 191 of Mauza Kadru, Ranchi and she has also been running a school in the name and style of Tiny Tots. Her father during his lifetime made some construction over the land. After his death the complainant let out the portion of the premises to some tenants. One of the tenants is Dhirendra Kanth. The said Dhirendra Kanth stopped giving rent for the last two years. Some days prior to the date of occurrence, said Dhirendra Kanth came to her house and threatened her and claimed that he is no more her tenant and he himself became the landlord after getting the land registered in his name by one Kashi Nath Roy. The complainant stated that the property in question .is an ancestral property and the same has been mutated in the office of Circle Officer. The complainant has been paying rent and taxes in respect of the land and the premises in question. On the threat of Dhirendra Kanth when the complainant enquired about the deed referred to by him, she came to know that. Dhirendra Kanth holds power of attorney in the name of one Kashi Nath Roy given by one Jhonjhia Devi wife of Kishun Sahu. On the basis of that power of attorney Dhirendra Kanth got the land transferred in the name of petitioner No.1 with his wife and son. The said Dhirendra Kanth has further prepared a forged Hukumnama in the name of the heirs of Krishna Sahu and on that basis sold the land to the petitioners. For that the petitioners have hatched conspiracy to grab the complainant's ancestral land. The land of Smt. B.I. Mujda and Smt. Darthu Cathelin Tailor was purchased by the father of the complainant in the year 1947 by virtue of registered sale deed and since then they have been residing in the said premises and paying rent continuously. Share was also allotted in a Partition Suit instituted in the year 1991. It has been stated by the petitioners that the complainant has suppressed the facts and made false statements, which are totally baseless. The land in question, prior to vesting of the Estates, belonged to Ex -landlord Chotanagpur Raj Trust, Ratugarh, Ranchi by virtue of Hukumnama dated 15.6.1939. The land was settled with Krishna Sahu. The name of Krishna Sahu was also entered in Register -II. He subsequently died in the year 2000. Krishna Sahu had given power of attorney to one Kashi Nath Roy empowering him, inter alia, to sell and transfer the land and property in question Kashi Nath Roy, on the basis of the said power of attorney, has executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The legal heir of Krishna Sahu was the rightful owner of the land. The contrary allegation on the complainant about hatching conspiracy or forging documents is wholly false and baseless and the prosecution is malicious. Learned Magistrate, without taking into consideration of the said facts, has arbitrarily taken cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioners, who happen to be the wife and son of the said Dhirendra Kanth. Mr. AK. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation made in the complaint is of civil nature and no criminal offence, as alleged therein, is made out. There was no sufficient material or basis for taking cognizance of the alleged offence and the order of learned Magistrate is wholly illegal and unsustainable. The entire criminal proceeding proceeded on that basis is also illegal and the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court.
(3.) MR . P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the land is recorded in the name of AT. Peepee and the complainant purchased the land from the successor in the interest of AT. Peepee. The land does not belong to Maharaja of Chotanagpur and the documents said to be the settlement by Ex -Manager of Maharaja is a Sada document and is a forged document. There is specific allegation that on the basis of such fake and forged documents, subsequent document was also obtained by falsely impersonating the executor before the Registration Office. All the records appertaining to the land in question stand in the name of her predecessor in interest or in the name of the complainant. Rent receipts have been granted to her since 1947. Learned Magistrate, after consideration of the facts solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses coupled with the consideration of public records/documents, found sufficient material constituting the aforesaid offence and has taken cognizance thereof. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order.;