Jharkhand HC Quashes Cheating, Forgery Case Against 19 Co-Parceners Over Shared-Land House Foundation Dispute, Citing No Allegation Of Inducement Or False Document

The complainant alleged that the petitioners, co-parceners of the disputed land, restrained him from digging it to construct a house plinth.

In his solemn-affirmation statement, he acknowledged that the petitioners had shares in the land but asserted that they could not sell it individually.

The petitioners sought, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the complaint proceeding and the Magistrate’s order dated 5 February 2016, which had found a prima facie case under Sections 420, 465 and 120B IPC.

They contended that the dispute was civil in nature and referred to a pending title suit brought by the complainant’s father and others.

Section 420 IPC requires deceit and inducement of the person deceived to part with property; the Court cited Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641, for these essential ingredients.

For Section 465 IPC, the Court identified the requirements of making a false document or electronic record, with the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intent and purpose.

The Court also referred to Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336, for the principle that cheating requires an intention to deceive at the inception of the transaction.

The Court also referred to Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, in addressing allegations concerning a co-parcener’s claim to land and its sale.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where their continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found no allegation that the petitioners had induced the complainant to part with property; the allegation concerned interference with his use of land in which the petitioners were said to have shares.

Accordingly, even accepting the allegations as true, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were absent, including for a conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

Nor was any specific false document or electronic record alleged to have been prepared by the petitioners, so the charge under Section 465 IPC was not made out.

In that context, the Court treated the dispute as insufficient to sustain the criminal proceeding.

It allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the Magistrate’s order dated 5 February 2016 in Complaint Case No. 1436 of 2014, qua the petitioners.