RANCHI, India, Jan. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 8:

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

3. Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed with the same prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 31 of 2020 and the said case is now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, hence, both Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the complainant for selling their land at the rate of Rs.3,61,000/- per katha. The petitioners took Rs.4,25,000/- as advance and thereafter, they took further amount of Rs.33,23,000/-. The complainant also constructed a boundary wall over the land to be sold but thereafter, the petitioners did not take the remaining amount of money nor did they execute the sale deed and for the purpose of cheating, they entered into an agreement for the sale.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bisheshwar Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2023:JHHC:8468 and submits that therein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the co-accused Bisheshwar Saw relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, wherein it was held that a mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code without there being a clear case of entrustment. In the case of Bisheshwar Saw vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124, therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took note of the trend to convert purely civil dispute into criminal case and depricated the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that a civil suit filed by the complainant prior to the institution of this case. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to Annexure-4, kept at page No.53 of the brief, which was filed four days prior to the filing of the instant complaint; with the prayer for specific performance of the contract. It is then submitted that the investigation of the case is still going on and the charge sheet has yet to be submitted in this case. It is further submitted that the informant has not paid the entire consideration amount and a sum of Rs.21,82,000/- is still due to be paid since 2017. It is also submitted that there are several purchasers of the adjoining land from the petitioners but no one had any grievance against the petitioners or his co-sharers. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfFosxe2ln9LYu7d5AxyKdYf%2Bdhz3ehhUHZJIcLejG9QE&caseno=Cr.M.P./3143/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010301922022&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.