Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:12038)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3808 of 2023
Gopal Prasad Sinha, aged about 83 years, son of late Yamuna Lal,
resident of near Hanuman Mandir, Booti More, Gate No.2, Dipatoli,
P.O. & P.S.- Dipatoli, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Naresh Kumar Pandit, son of Mahabir Pandit, resident of Gousala
Road, P.O.-Jhumari Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, Dist.-Koderma
(Jharkhand)
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
: Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
…..
By the Court:-
1. 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 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.3196 of 2019
whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi has found prima facie case of the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
1
Cr.M.P. No.3808 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:12038)
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 Atik Iqbal and Atik 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
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 of the offence and passed 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,
2
Cr.M.P. No.3808 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:12038)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)
submits 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
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.
3
Cr.M.P. No.3808 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:12038)
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
that 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 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
4
Cr.M.P. No.3808 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:12038)
that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
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
5
Cr.M.P. No.3808 of 2023
(2026:JHHC:12038)
claiming himself to be the owner of the same and it is the 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 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 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.3196 of 2019 be
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.3196 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
Dated the 23rd April, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 27/04/2026
6
Cr.M.P. No.3808 of 2023
