Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 318 (PAT)

Suchita Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-12

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.5.2006 passed by learned Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 631 C of 2006, whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of processes against accused persons. 2. It appears that the complainant opposite party No.2 Bharat Rai on 7.4.2006 filed a petition of complaint vide Complaint Case No. 631C of 2006 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran against the petitioner and two others for offences punishable under Sections 406,420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the complainant Bharat Rai purchased 11 kathas of land by way of four registered sale deeds from accused Mohan Kuer @ Mohan Kumar on 19.2.1998 after paying the price of the same. The sale deeds were executed in the name of complainant, his wife and his two sons. After purchase the complainant came in possession over the entire area of 11 kathas. It is said that after executing the sale deeds, accused No. 1 Mohan Kuer @ Mohan Kumar in collusion with other accused persons prepared a family partition deed dated 18.1.1981. He also brought into existence Mohadanama dated 20.11.1987 with ulterior motive. It is further alleged that accused Mohan Kuer @ Mohan Kumar acquired the land in question in his name in the year 1980 which would be apparent from the contents of the sale deed executed by one Md. Ashique. Thus it is said that accused persons are using forged and fabricated documents as genuine documents against the complainant. 3. It appears that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and two witnesses were examined during the enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding further against accused persons, took cognizance and ordered for issuance of processes against them. Against the said order of cognizance dated 5.5.2006 the petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. 4. Against the said order of cognizance dated 5.5.2006 the petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel that petitioner Suchita Devi, wife of accused Mohan Kuer @ Mohan Kumar neither executed the sale deed nor did anything which would attract the ingredient of any offence against her. He further contended that Ramchandra Singh who is brother-in-law of Mohan Kuer @ Mohan Kumar has filed Partition Suit No. 5/97 in which the complainant, complainants wife and his sons including the petitioners have been made as defendants. The land transferred by accused Mohan Kuer @ Mohan Kumar in favour of complainant Bharat Rai and his family members is also a part of the suit property. In the partition suit it is the case of the plaintiff that in the family arrangement, out of 11 kathas of land of plot No.45, 3, 5 was allotted to Suchita Devi. Learned counsel submitted that whether Kora Batwara paper and Mohadanama are genuine or forged papers, can be decided only after decision of the partition suit. He also pointed out that in the partition suit, present complainant has appeared and has already filed written statement. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that both the civil and criminal litigation can continue simultaneously. 6. From the allegations made in the petition of complaint, it is clear that the petitioner Suchita Devi did not execute the sale deeds. There is also nothing in the complaint petition to show that the documents prepared by the accused petitioner have been used against the complainant anywhere. It is now admitted position that accused Ram Chandra Singh has filed Partition Suit No. 5/97 against the complainant, complainants wife and his sons and other accused persons. In that partition suit the family partition paper dated 18.8.1981 and Mohadanama dated 20.11.1987 have been used. The complainant has already appeared and challenged the genuineness of aforesaid two papers. So long the partition suit is not decided, the continuation of the present criminal case will not serve any purpose. After decision of the partition suit the complainant will be at liberty to take action according to law. Moreover the dispute is of civil nature and so its continuation would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. So long the partition suit is not decided, the continuation of the present criminal case will not serve any purpose. After decision of the partition suit the complainant will be at liberty to take action according to law. Moreover the dispute is of civil nature and so its continuation would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. In the above facts and circumstances the order of cognizance dated 5.5.2006 is hereby quashed. This application is accordingly allowed.