Download Report

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. 381 of 2015
Ram Kumar Madhesia @ Ram Kumar Madheshiya,
S/o Sri Prayag Prasad, R/o Airport Road, Hinoo,
PO Doranda, PS Doranda,District Ranchi(Jharkhand)............ Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand through the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)
With
.......... Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. 382 of 2015
Bhogendra Thakur, S/o Late Sahdeo Thakur, R/o Gandhi Maidan, Matwari (South Part), PO & PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh(Jharkhand) ............ Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand through the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) .......... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
---------For the petitioners
:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties
:Mr. K.P.Deo,Advocate
---------th
03/Dated:20 March, 2015
Both the applications arising out of the same case were
heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.
Both these applications have been filed on behalf of
petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of
R.C. Case No. 15(A) of
cognizance
dated
2012-D
19.1.2015
including
whereby
the
and
order
taking
whereunder
cognizance of the offence punishable under section 120B read
with Sections 201,423,424, 420,467,468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was been taken by the Special
Judge,C.B.I., Dhanbad.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits
that the petitioners are being prosecuted as they registered the
sale deeds with respect to lands which were non-transferable in
nature on the basis of no objection certificates which later on
were found to be forged. Learned counsel by referring
charge sheet further submits that in the year 1993
the
to the
then
2
Deputy Commissioner cum District Registrar, Deoghar got a list
of transferable as well as non-transferable land prepared on the
basis
of Khatiyan for different Mauzas of all the circles of
Deoghar. The said list was made available to the office of District
Sub-Registrar so, that he may refer it at the time of registration
of the sale deed. That practice was done away with on and from
14.1.2004 when a new Circular was issued wherein a seller has
to file application before the Circle Officer that the land which
is intended to be transfered is a transferable land and on such
application, inquiry is supposed to be made by the Circle Officer.
On inquiry, when it is
found that land is transferable, 'no-
objection certificate' is to be issued and only then the sale deed
is to be registered by the Deputy Sub-Registrar. The petitioners
followed the same procedure when 'no objection certificate' was
produced before them but, as because, no objection was found to
be forged the petitioners are being prosecuted which is quite
illegal as admittedly, no role had been played by the petitioners
in issuance of forged no-objection certificate. Further more, no
allegation is there that these
petitioners did it with dishonest
intention for getting undue pecuniary advantage. If that factum
is absent petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted in view of
decision rendered in the case of C.K.Jaffer Sharief Versus
State through CBI( 2013)1 SCC 205.
Further it was submitted that even if 'no objection
certificate' was forged knowledge of which the petitioners did
have he can not refuse to register the sale deed in view of
provisions as contained in Section 71 and 74 of the Registration
Act, which proposition has been laid down by this Court in a case
of Tarkeshwar Prasad passed in W.P.(C) no. 4089 of 2013,
which was affirmed in L.P.A. no. 467 of 2014. Further, it was
submitted that only because the petitioners did not refer to a list
which was prepared in the year 1993 they are being prosecuted,
though, after 14.1.2004 when new practice was adopted, earlier
practice which was there since 1993, had been done away with
and hence under these circumstances petitioners cannot be said
3
to have committed any offence either under the provision of
Indian Penal Code or under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Mr. Deo learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I.
submits that a plea is being taken on behalf of petitioners that
the practice which was there since 1993, of referring to the list
maintained in the office of District Sub-Registrar at the time of
registration of the sale deed, got dispensed with on and from
14.1.2004 is not correct, as the CBI in its charge sheet
has
categorically alleged that these petitioners willfully did not refer
to the list prepared in the year 1993 and that apart
the
petitioners did act upon 'no objection certificates' which were
forged and under the circumstances dishonest intention can be
attached from both the facts and thereby the trial court
has
rightly taken cognizance of the offences punishable either under
Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act.
Having heard counsel for the parties, I find that the plea
which has been taken on behalf of petitioners is that petitioners
were never required to refer the list which have been prepared
in the year 1993, as that practice got dispensed with as soon as
new order was passed on 14.1.2004, whereby a District Sub
Registrar
used to have no objection certificate for registering
the sale deed.
On the other hand, stand which has been taken by the CBI
is that the practice which was there from 1993 had never been
dispensed with, rather, in addition to that the order passed on
14.1.2004 is to be adhered to by the registering authority, before
the sale deed is registered. Those safeguard were taken for the
reason that a person mischievously may not get a land
registered which is a non-transferable land.
Thus, at this stage, it cannot be decided as to whether the
practice prevailing since 1993 was to be adhered or not or only
the process initiated after 14.1.2004 was to be adhered to. This
can only be raised or thrashed out at an appropriate stage.
Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order
taking cognizance hence, these two applications stand
4
dismissed.
However, before parting with this order it be recorded that
the findings recorded for the purpose of disposal of the case will
not be prejudicial to the case of the petitioners.
(R.R.Prasad,J.)
Nibha