GOPAL PRASAD SINHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

[ 2026:JHHC:13221 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3837 of 2023

Gopal Prasad Sinha aged about 84 years son of Late
Yamuna Lal, resident of near Hanuman Mandir, Booti
More, Gate No.2, Dipatoli, P.O. and P.S. Dipatoli,
District Ranchi ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Poonam Kumari Mishra, W/O- Arun Kumar, R/O-
Chitragupt Nagar, Ward No. 23, PO P.S- Telaiya, Dist.-
Koderma ….. Opposite Parties


For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Adv.



P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 3095 of 2019
whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner claiming
himself to be the son of Jamuna Prasad Sinha executed a power of
attorney in favour of Atique Iqbal and Atique Iqbal in capacity of
power of attorney holder of the petitioner; has sold the land
which was earlier sold in favour of the complainant by his
vendor; to Uttam Kumar. It is further alleged that the petitioner
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3837 of 2023

[ 2026:JHHC:13221 ]
claims to be the legal heir of Jamuna Prasad Sinha on the basis of a
wrong genealogy.
4. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on
solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie
case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the
summoning order as already indicated above.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 751 , paragraph no. 23 to 25 of which reads as under:-
“A clarification
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to
convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false
document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as
holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells
a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds
the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the
purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act
of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed
may not be able to make such complaint.
24. The term ‘fraud’ is not defined in the Code. The dictionary
definition of ‘fraud’ is “deliberate deception, treachery or cheating
intended to gain advantage”. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872
defines ‘fraud’ with reference to a party to a contract
25. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572, this
Court explained the meaning of the expression ‘defraud’ thus
“The expression “defraud” involves two elements, namely, deceit
and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than
economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable
or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm
whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such
others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A
benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss
or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there
is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding
loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.”
The above definition was in essence reiterated in State of
UP vs. Ranjit Singh - 1999 (2) SCC 617.” (Emphasis supplied)

that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in no
uncertain manner has held that if a person sells a property
knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the
person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is
the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the
fraudulent act of cheating but a third party who is not the
2 Cr.M.P. No. 3837 of 2023

[ 2026:JHHC:13221 ]
purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such
complaint.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the complainant is a third party; so far as the transaction
between the petitioner and Uttam Kumar are concerned hence,
the complaint at the instance of the complainant is not
maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jit Vinayak
Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 31 and
submits that in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has also approbated and relied upon its own judgment in
the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) .

8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc.
reported in 2018 Supreme (SC) 462 that in paragraph no.29
thereof, in the similar facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India has observed that the penal statute cannot be expanded
by using implications and as there is no ambiguity, there is no
scope for interpretation. It is then submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner
are all false and there is no allegation of impersonation against the
petitioner, as petitioner claiming himself to be Gopal Prasad Sinha
has sold the land through his power of attorney. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner in fact is the son of Jamuna Lal and has all the relevant
documents to establish the same and this case has falsely been
foisted, only for wreaking vengeance. It is further submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that Uttam Kumar who has
purchased the land has no grievance against the petitioner and

the property has been mutated in his name. Hence, it is submitted
that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
3 Cr.M.P. No. 3837 of 2023

[ 2026:JHHC:13221 ]
9. The learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and
submits that though the petitioner has claimed to be Gopal Prasad
Sinha but the impersonation is regarding his parentage only as he
has wrongly mentioned that he is son of Jamuna Lal. It is further
submitted by learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 that the complaint, statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the
inquiry witnesses is sufficient to constitute each of the offences in
respect of which prima facie case was found by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 further submits that the mutation which was done in
the name of Uttam Kumar has been set aside by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi in Mutation Revision Case No. 108R
15/2024-25. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous
petition being without any merit be dismissed.

10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Ibrahim
& Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (supra) that a third party to a
sale deed cannot maintain a complaint if a person executes a sale

deed claiming himself to be the owner of the same and it is only
the purchaser who can maintain such complaint.

11. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains
that the complainant is the third party to the transaction of the
sale deed executed by the petitioner through his power of
attorney in favour of Uttam Kumar. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the land in question.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in
respect of sale deed executed by him claiming to the owner of the
property in favour of Uttam Kumar through the power of
attorney holder; by the complainant being the third party to the
4 Cr.M.P. No. 3837 of 2023

[ 2026:JHHC:13221 ]
said transaction, will amount to abuse of process of law and this is
a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.3095 of 2019 be
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.3095 of 2019 is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 30 April, 2026
Smita / AFR

Uploaded on 14.05.2026

5 Cr.M.P. No. 3837 of 2023