Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 356 (ORI)

Manohar Patnaik v. Ranjeet Kumar Patnaik

2004-08-13

A.S.NAIDU

body2004
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — These two Criminal Misc. Cases arise out of the same complaint case, i.e. ICC No. 78 of 1999 pending before the S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar. Accordingly both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The three petitioners in Crl. Misc. Case No. 363 of 2003 challenge the order dated 27.1.03 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhanjanagar in the aforesaid complaint case framing charges against them under Sections 420/468/34, IPC. The com¬plaint case was filed by Ranjeet Patnaik, opposite party No. 1 in this Criminal Misc. Case, inter alia, alleging that petitioner No. 1 Manohar Patnaik managed to sell some lands belonging to the branch of the complainant by means of five registered sale deeds describing himself as the son of Suryanarayan Patnaik instead of Adinarayan Patnaik. According to the complainant, petitioner No. 1 is the son of Adinarayan Patnaik and he impersonated himself in order to cause loss and prejudice and to cheat the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the other two accused persons, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the Cri.Misc. Case, had executed the sale deeds and alienated the properties belonging to the branch of Suryanarayan Patnaik knowing fully well that being the sons of Adinarayan they were not entitled to execute such sale deeds. In the case, twenty documents were relied upon by the complainant in support of his case. The complainant had also furnished the names of his witnesses. The learned J.M.F.C. conducted an inquiry as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and after observing all paraphernalia framed charges against the accused-petitioners as stated above. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in Cri. Revision No. 312/03 who is the complainant in the complaint case is that while framing charges against the accused persons, the Court below did not frame charges against them under Sections 417/419/426/467/120-B/34, IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908. Mr. Manoj Misra, learned counsel for this petitioner, submits that there are enough materials available on record to frame charges against the accused persons for the offences under the aforesaid Sections, but the learned Magistrate lost sight of the same. Accordingly, he forcefully submitted that the learned Magistrate should be directed to frame charges for commission of the aforesaid offences also. 4. Accordingly, he forcefully submitted that the learned Magistrate should be directed to frame charges for commission of the aforesaid offences also. 4. In course of hearing, Miss Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cri.Misc.Case No. 363/03, forcefully submitted that there is absolutely no material to frame any charge against the accused-petitioners. According to her, the properties in question are the joint family properties and Suryanarayan and Adinarayan were two branches of the joint family. Though the execution of the five sale deeds by petitioner No. 1 is admitted, according to the learned counsel, the same were inadvertent mistakes and coming to know that steps have been taken to rectify the same. It was further submitted that petitioner No. 1 had absolutely no mens rea or any intention to commit the offence as alleged, and as such the Court below acted illegally in framing charges against the accused-petitioners. According to her, if the impugned order is not quashed, the petitioners who are innocent persons would be compelled and coerced to face the rigors of criminal trial, thereby causing immense hardship and prejudice to them. 5. Mr. Manoj Misra, learned counsel for the complainant, at the other hand submitted that the accused persons intentional¬ly to cause loss and harassment to the complainant had impersonated themselves and had executed not only one, but five sale deeds alienating the properties which did not belong to them. Thus they having committed cognizable offences, the Court below framed charges against them. He strongly repudiated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused persons. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both sides at length and perused the complaint petition as also the materials avail¬able on record diligently. In the complaint petition it has been clearly alleged that accused Manohar Patnaik, S/o Adinarayan Patnaik describing himself to be the son of Suryanarayan Patnaik had executed the five sale deeds. Execution of such sale deeds, Exts. 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13, impersonating himself as the son of Suryanarayan, if true, definitely amounts to commission of cog¬nizable offence. Thus, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merit of the contention of the parties, I hold that the Court below has rightly framed the charges against petitioner Manohar Patnaik. 7. But then as would be evident from the complaint petition, the other two accused persons had executed the sale deed Ext. Thus, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merit of the contention of the parties, I hold that the Court below has rightly framed the charges against petitioner Manohar Patnaik. 7. But then as would be evident from the complaint petition, the other two accused persons had executed the sale deed Ext. 1 alienating some property of which they were not the real owners. Law is well settled that if a person having no title over a property executes and registers a sale deed in respect of that property, such sale deed is ab initio void and does not confer any title upon the purchaser. Thus by such illegal action, the person who purchases the property is affected and not the real owner of the property. The complainant claims to be the real owner of the properties in question and as such he has no cause of action to file the complaint case. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 27.1.2003 so far as it relates to framing charges against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 363/03 is quashed. To sum up, so far as Crl. Misc. Case No. 363/03 is con¬cerned, I direct that the complaint case shall proceed against petitioner No. 1 Manohar Patnaik alone for the charges framed against him. The charges framed against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Rajkishore Patnaik and Brajakishore Patnaik respectively, are quashed with observation that if in course of trial the Court below is satisfied from the evidence adduced that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are found to have committed any offence, necessary orders in accordance with law may be passed by the said Court for array¬ing them as accused. 9. So far as Cri.Revision No. 312/03 is concerned, a perusal of the complaint petition clearly reveals that the com¬plainant has not alleged that the accused persons committed any offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act. The Court below, on scrutiny of the materials available, also was prima facie satisfied that no offence was made out under the said Section and accordingly did not frame charge under the said Section and other Sections as contended by the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate took into consideration all the materials, both oral and documentary, and being prima facie satisfied framed charges under Sections 420/468/34, IPC. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate took into consideration all the materials, both oral and documentary, and being prima facie satisfied framed charges under Sections 420/468/34, IPC. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The prayer of the complainant to direct the Court below to frame charges under Section 82 of the Registration Act as well as other offences is not tenable and I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Misra. According¬ly, I dismiss Cri.Revision No. 312/03 with similar observation made in the Cri.Misc. Case that if in course of trial the Court below is satisfied that any other offence is found to have been committed, it may exercise its power as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pass necessary orders. Both the Criminal Misc. Case and the Criminal Revision are disposed of. Cases disposed of.