Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 717 (JHR)

Hemlal Mahtha v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-19

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.9.1998, whereby the prayer for discharge of the petitioners was refused by the Court below. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this application are that a First Information Report being Peterwar P.S. Case No. 123 of 1988 was registered under Sections 465, 463, 471, 467 and 120-B. IPC against the petitioner and others after the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint petition filed by the complainant, Saroj Kumar Pandey to the police for Instituting a case. 3. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant and five others jointly pur chased Plot Nos. 49 and 50 measuring 3.20 acres of land in village Kurumba. P.S. Chandrapura under Khata No. 306/292 through a registered sale deed on 24.6,1975 from Smt. Ram Pati Devi on a valuable consideration of money. It was further alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 named in the complaint petition wanted to purchase the said very land and therefore when they failed to get the land transferred from the real owner then they in conspiracy with some staff of the Registry Office of Tenughat, made certain interpolation in the. registered sale deed dated 24.6.1975, by which the complainant had purchased the plot Nos. 49 and 50. It was further alleged that in the sale deed dated 24.6.1975 the plot Nos. 49 and 50 were made as Plot Nos. 149 and 150 and thereafter on 2.8.1975 manufactured another sale deed and by impersonating the real owner, Smt. Ram pati Devi, presented a fake sale deed through the accused No. 6 Named, Sanehari Kumbarin by impersonating Rampati Devi the real owner. The matter was reported by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, who inquired into the matter and found that interpolations were made in the sale deed dated 24.6.1976. 4. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant carne to know about the existence of the illegal deed in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 5, one week ago only when they received a notice from the office of the Circle Officer regarding a Mutation proceeding in which the accused had applied for mutation of their names. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant carne to know about the existence of the illegal deed in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 5, one week ago only when they received a notice from the office of the Circle Officer regarding a Mutation proceeding in which the accused had applied for mutation of their names. Thereafter the complaint was lodged in the Court, which was sent to the police for instituting FIR, The police after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was taken on 2.8.1990 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 5. The accused persons including the petitioner challenged the said order of taking cognizance by filing Cr, Miscellaneous No. 3135/90(R) before this Court, but this Court by order dated 9.2.1996 disposed of the said proceeding without interfering with the order taking cognizance. However, liberty was given to the petitioners to raise all the points at the time of farming of charge. Subsequently as it appears that a petition was filed by the petitioner before the Court below for their discharge, which was rejected by the impugned order, and hence this application. 6. Mr. Ramawater Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation against the petitions are only general in nature and are absolutely vague and during investigation nothing specific has been found against the petitioners so as to frame charges against them. It was further contended that the complaint was filed after 13 years of the date of occurrence i.e. the execution of the sale deed therefore, there was unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the case, which made the case of the prosecution doubtful. It was next contended that the issuance of processes against a person is a serious matter and therefore it should not be issued mechanically, as has been done in the present case. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision reported in 1999 (1) East Cr C 8; 2005 (3) East Cr C 518 (Jhr); 2005 (3) JLJR 161 and 1998 (1) Cr LJ 1 (SC). 7. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision reported in 1999 (1) East Cr C 8; 2005 (3) East Cr C 518 (Jhr); 2005 (3) JLJR 161 and 1998 (1) Cr LJ 1 (SC). 7. As has been noticed above, the present case arise out of a FIR, in which the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet on the basis of the statement of the witnesses examined under Section 161, Cr PC and after verifying the documents alleged to have been forged. It is only after finding sufficient materials against the accused persons, the police submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the petitioners. So far as the decision cited by Mr. Sharma i.e. 1999 (1) East Cr C 8; 2005 (3) East Cr C 518 (Jhr) and 2005 (3) JLJR 161 are concerned, the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in these cases on a private complainant, an enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC was made and then cognizance was taken which was challenged before the High Court and then before Supreme Court, whereas in the present case on the basis of the materials adduced during investigation, the Court below after discussing and considering the materials collected during investigation and then has found that there are sufficient materials for framing charge against the accused persons. 8. From perusal of the last decision cited by Mr. Sharma i.e. 1998 (1) Cr LJ 1 (SC), it appears that in the said decision, Supreme Court explained the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr PC while dealing with application for quashing of the complaint, filed under Section 7(6) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the basis of the materials on record, it came to the conclusion that the complaint petition and the preliminary evidence during enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC did not make out any case against the accused and therefore on the said basis the complaint was quashed in the facts and circumstances of that case. Apparently there is difference in the present case, I find from the impugned order that the learned Court below has discussed elaborately and considered the statements made by. Apparently there is difference in the present case, I find from the impugned order that the learned Court below has discussed elaborately and considered the statements made by. the witnesses during investigation as recorded in the case diary and also the documents in question i.e. a sale deed, particularly the statements of the real owner, Ram Pati Devi and then it was held that there was sufficient materials against the petitioners for commission of alleged offences as the informant has himself stated in the complaint petition that he came to know about the alleged offences only a week back prior to the filing of the complaint, there fore, the delay in filing the complaint was properly explained. It is a settled law that meticulous examination of the evidence and materials on record, is not required to be made at the stage of framing of charge. If the Court finds that there are sufficient materials and even in my case where there any strong suspicion against the accused persons for commission of the offences that is enough for framing of charge. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I find that no case at all has been made out for interference of this Court. The Court below rightly rejected the prayer for discharge. 10. Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.