Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 716 (JHR)

Hawa Bibi v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-07-05

D.N.PRASAD

body2002
ORDER D.N. Prasad, J. 1. Both these applications have been heard together as the same FIR has been challenged in both the applications as well as similar question of law and facts are involved and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both applications have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the criminal prosecution and investigation including FIR being Pindrajora PS Case No. 45 of 2001, which was registered under Section 420, 467, 466, 120-B and 149, IPC. 3. Short facts as alleged in the FIR is that Bhikhu Mahto had purchased lands from Jagdamba Prasad by registered sale deed dated 29.12.1975 and the said land was subsequently sold by the said Jagdamba Prasad to Teju Ansari and Hawa Bibi, petitioners of W.P. (Cr.) No. 76 of 2002 by registered sale deed on 18.2.1992. The informant further claimed that he came to know about the subsequent sale only when his application for mutation was cancelled. Against the mutation order, the informant preferred an appeal before the L.R.D.C. which was dismissed and thereafter he preferred revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh which is still pending. The complainant also filed a Title suit No. 26/1999 for a declaration that sale deed executed by Jagdamba Prasad in the name of Teju Ansari and Hawa Bibi are null and void. It is further alleged that the accused petitioners produced two plain agreement printed on non judicial stamp dated 29.12.1975 and 1.1.1983 which indicates that sale deeds executed by Jagdamba Prasad in 1975 in favour of the complainant was Kutkewala in nature and it was executed on payment of Rs. 6,000/-only whereas the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000/- in total and the balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid upto 1.7.1983, falling which the sale deed executed by Jagdamba Prasad would stand cancelled. That agreement is forged and fabricated paper prepared by the accused-petitioners as the signature of the complainant was shown over the said agreement but there is no signature of Jagdamba Prasad and as such the accused persons committed cheating and also fabricated the documents. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who sent the said application to the police station under Section 156(3), Cr PC. 4. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who sent the said application to the police station under Section 156(3), Cr PC. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 2 preferred this complaint without any basis as no case is made out against the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 2 had already filed a title Suit No. 26/1999 which is pending before the Munsif at Chas and that Title Suit is for declaration of his title and for cancellation of sale deed under challenge i.e. dated 18.2.1992. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 had also filed a petition in the Court below for grant of injunction which was dismissed and against which he also filed Misc. Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bokaro which was also dismissed. It is further argued that the mutation has already been made in favour of the purchaser namely, Teju Ansari and Hawa Bibi who has purchased the lands as back as in the year 1992 by registered sale deed, but it is true that a revision is lying .pending in the Court of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh. It is further argued that the complainant had also filed a complaint case of similar nature being complaint case No. 175 of 1999, which is still pending before the Court below indicating the mala fide intention of the complainant In order to harass the petitioners. It is further argued that so far petitioners of WP (Cr) 78/2002 is concerned, there is nothing specific or direct allegation against these petitioners to be involved or indulged in any way in forging the said agreement as admittedly the father of these petitioner had sold the land either to the complainant or to Teju Ansari and Hawa Bibi but these petitioners have got no concern with the said sale or preparation of the said agreement at any point of time. At best petitioners, Teju Ansari and Hawa Bibi who are the subsequent purchasers from Jagdamba Prasad may be held responsible in doing mischief in the said agreement. But, so far as the sons of Jagdamba Prasad are concerned, there is no material whatsoever to connect them in any way for the alleged offence. Apparently, there is no eye witness about committing forgery of the said agreement. But, so far as the sons of Jagdamba Prasad are concerned, there is no material whatsoever to connect them in any way for the alleged offence. Apparently, there is no eye witness about committing forgery of the said agreement. It is also pointed out that Teju Ansari had already filed an application before the Court below for amalgamation of the said Complaint Case No. 175 of 1999 with the instant case being Pindrajora PS Case No. 55 of 2001 but even the Revisional Court did not appreciate the contention and dismissed the application vide Cr Rev No. 60 of 2001. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 contended before me that the accused persons committed forgery by creating two agreements which have never been executed by Bhikhu Mahto, the complainant as well as the said agreement was sent for comparison In the police Laboratory (CID) and it was found that the signature on the agreement is false and fabricated and so the said agreement was obviously fabricated by the accused persons and produced before the Court. It is also submitted that the Investigation is still going on in the matter and the petitioners have falsely filed these applications, which are fit to be dismissed. 6. From going through the complaint/FIR, it is obviously specifically-stated that one plain agreement on non judicial stamp said to have been created as being Kutkewala which is the cause and crux of the whole allegation. The allegation specifically made that the signature of the complainant/informant was fabricated by the accused persons and the said paper after forging was produced before the Court in order to create false evidence. Obviously, the FIR was lodged and In that the Investigation is also going on. It is true that one Complaint Case No. 175 of 1999 was also filed by the complainant namely, Bhikhu Mahto as back as in the year 1999, which is also lying pending before the Court below. Obviously, the FIR was lodged and In that the Investigation is also going on. It is true that one Complaint Case No. 175 of 1999 was also filed by the complainant namely, Bhikhu Mahto as back as in the year 1999, which is also lying pending before the Court below. The said complaint case on the face of the police case obviously ought to be stayed as per Section 210(1) Cr PC, which reads as under : "When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the enquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police office conducting the investigation." 7. Thus, apparently, the police case is pending under investigation and, therefore, the complaint case which was filed earlier ought to be remained stayed after taking a report from the Investigating Officer. 8. It is true that a Title Suit was also filed by the complainant for cancellation of deed of sale and setting aside the illegal order of mutation, which is also pending in the Court of Munsif, Chas. It is also settled that a criminal case cannot be thwarted merely because civil proceedings are also maintainable. Mere filing of Title Suit will not be a bar for initiating criminal proceeding, if obviously, prima facie, case is made out. It is also settled that if on the basis of the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, a prima facie case is made out then this Court should be reluctant in interfering the prosecution at the stage of investigation. 9. I have already discussed above that specifically there is an allegation about creation of agreement at the belated stage, which is under consideration during investigation. 10. 9. I have already discussed above that specifically there is an allegation about creation of agreement at the belated stage, which is under consideration during investigation. 10. In this view of the matter, I find that the prima facie has been made out at this stage for the matter being investigated for which there appears no reason for any interference in the prosecution/FIR However, since the Complaint Case No. 175 of 1999 has also been filed in respect of the same matter and as such the Court below is directed to take steps for staying the said complaint case in accordance with Section 210 Cr PC. 11. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in these applications. Thus, both the applications are dismissed.