Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 148 (PAT)

Ram Kripal Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-19

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 3.8.2004 passed by Sri B.K.Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Complaint Case No. C-292/2004, Tr. No. 1079 of 2005 thereby and thereunder cognizance has been taken under Sections 465,466, 467, 474, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. 2. Opposite Party no. 2, Sugam Devi, filed complaint case no. 1/97 before Sri Lai Bihari, Judicial Magistrate, Chapra against the petitioner and three others, who were revenue karmchari of Gorakha Block. Learned Magistrate sent the same to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for institution of the first information report and investigation. The police registered the case bearing Gorakha P.S. Case No. 91/97 against the accused persons including the petitioners under the above Sections of the Penal Code. After investigation the police submitted final report in the year 1999 against all the accused persons as the case false. In the meantime, protest was filed by the complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 which was registered as Complaint case no. C-292/04 and the case was transferred to the court of Sri B.K.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, under Sec.192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate inquired into the allegation under Sec.202 of the Code of cognizance against all the accused persons including these petitioners under above Sections of the Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that there is a plot bearing no. 697 under Khata no. 38 having total area of 17 Kathas and 4 dhurs which originally belonged to one Brahmdeo Singh. The complainant purchased 12 Kathas 4 dhurs out of the said plot from Brahmdeo Singh whereas the petitioners father and his relation purchased the remaining area out of the same plot. Accordingly, the petitioners and the complainant came in possession over their respective purchased area of the land. However, later on the petitioners who were Circle Inspectors in collusion with other accused persons got the name of Kanchan Singh, brother of petitioner no.1, Ram Kripal Smgn entered into Register II in place of Brahmdeo Singh after cutting and overwriting his name. Thereafter, other accused persons also began to grant false rent receipts in favour of the petitioners. However, later on the petitioners who were Circle Inspectors in collusion with other accused persons got the name of Kanchan Singh, brother of petitioner no.1, Ram Kripal Smgn entered into Register II in place of Brahmdeo Singh after cutting and overwriting his name. Thereafter, other accused persons also began to grant false rent receipts in favour of the petitioners. The complainants husband complained against the forgery to the Circle Officer and Deputy Collector, Land Reforms but they did not take any action. Therefore, this case was filed. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire case is false, baseless and frivolous. The land in question never belonged to Brahmdeo Singh and he had no right and title to execute any sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of the complainant. The complainant moved before the revenue authorities for matation of her name over the land in question but failed. Thereafter, this false case was lodged. During investigation the Dy.S.R. and Superintendent of Police, Chapra supervised the case and scrutinised the relevant Register II but did not find any cutting or overwriting. Accordingly, the police submitted final report which is annexure-6. The supervision reports of both the officers have also been filed which are annexures 2 and 3. The petitioners have also annexed the photo copy of Register II of Khata Nos. 62 and 68 as annexure-5 as well as rent receipts, annexure-4 series. It is further submitted that the court below has taken cognizance on the basis of oral evidence without properly looking into the relevant entry in Register II Photocopy of which was also brought on lower court record by the complainant. It is submitted that on mere perusal of Register II it would appear that there is no cutting or overwriting in the name of Brahmdeo Singh. The name of Kanchan Singh has been mentioned in Register II against column "Name of tenants". It is further submitted that the complainant has filed this case with ulterior and oblique motive in order to harass the petitioners and to pressurise them to withdraw their claim over the land in question. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party supported the impugned order. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed this case with ulterior and oblique motive in order to harass the petitioners and to pressurise them to withdraw their claim over the land in question. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party supported the impugned order. However, when it was directed by this Court to show whether there is any cutting or overwriting in the name of Brahmdeo Singh in Register II, he failed to show the same. 6. I have also gone through the photo copy of the Register II which is on the record of this Cr. Misc. case as well as on the lower court records which has been issued by the Circle Officer of Gorakha Block. I do not find any cutting in the name of any person. The name of Kanchan Singh has clearly been mentioned in Register II. Thus it is quite clear that the allegation levelled against the petitioners in the complaint petition is palpably false. Apparently this case has been filed with oblique and ulterior motive just to harass the petitioners and in fact the complainant-Opposite Party no. 2 has harassed the petitioners, who are Government Officials, for last nine years for their no fault. 7. The Apex Court as well as this Court has given warning to the Magistrates times without number not to take cognizance in mechanical manner and without applying their mind on facts as well as materials available on record as also law applicable thereto but it appears that they have not taken note of it. In the present case also the court below has taken cognizance without properly appreciating documents/materials in a very mechanical manner. It amounts to non-application of mind. 8. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order as well as criminal proceeding in question is hereby quashed, but in respect of petitioners only. 9. However, quashing the impugned order is not sufficient. Now the time has come to take action according to law against false and frivolous accusation. It has crossed its limit. 9. However, quashing the impugned order is not sufficient. Now the time has come to take action according to law against false and frivolous accusation. It has crossed its limit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I award cost of rupees one thousand only against Opposite Party no.2 which shall be deposited in Legal Services Authority, Saran at Chapra within one month, failing which the court below shall recover the amount as provided under Sec. 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.