Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 357 (JHR)

Ela Tigga v. State of Jharkhand

2010-03-19

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2010
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. Both the Criminal Revisions are directed against the common order impugned dated 09.02.2009 passed by Shri Diwakar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by which the common petition for their discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners of both the revisions in Complaint Case No. 538 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 853 of 2009 was rejected. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant - O.P. No. 2 herein filed a Complaint Case No. 538 of 2002 before the C.J.M., Ranchi narrating therein that she was the widow of late Kushal Tigga, an employee of Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineer Ltd., Diesel Engine Plant, Dhurwa, Ranchi, who died on 15.03.1996 leaving behind the complainant being the widow. It was further stated that as there was no issue from them, her husband Kushal Tigga had adopted a son Godwin Tigga @ Champi some 22 years ago in his lifetime and therefore the complainant as well as Godwin Tigga @ Champi were the only legal heirs and successors of the deceased Kushal Tigga. It was alleged against the accused persons including the petitioners that they in furtherance of common intention obtained the signature of the complainant - O.P. No. 2 on a paper on the assurance that they would help her in obtaining the amount due to her being the arrears of her deceased husband. However, she gathered after some time that all the accused persons sworn affidavits claiming themselves to be the legal heirs and successors with the intention to obtain the due amount of Kushal Tigga but they failed to establish, and upon enquiry it was detected that they had produced forged documents claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of Kushal Tigga. It was further alleged that on 08.08.2002 all the accused persons tried to harass her and that the accused-petitioner Ela Tigga filed an objection before the R.S.D.C., Ranchi though the adopted son of the complainant had already obtained permission u/s 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. It was further alleged that on 08.08.2002 all the accused persons tried to harass her and that the accused-petitioner Ela Tigga filed an objection before the R.S.D.C., Ranchi though the adopted son of the complainant had already obtained permission u/s 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. It was stated that the petitioner Ela Tigga filed an objection in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Succession Case No. 219 of 2001 filed by the complainant - O.P. No. 2 in which the accused No. 2 to 4 (petitioners herein) claiming themselves as the daughters of late Kushal Tigga, wanted to snatch the entire property as well as the amount to the extent of Rs. 2,09,480/- being the arrears of late Kushal Tigga pending before the Department by using forged documents, as such the accused persons committed offence under Sections 467/468/471 & allied Sections of I.P.C. The complainant - O.P. No. 2 was examined on solemn affirmation and thereafter 4 witnesses were produced and examined in course of enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. but the learned Magistrate after hearing the Counsels of the Opposite Party No. 2 and upon perusal of the record dismissed the complaint by the order dated 25.11.2002 u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against that order, Cr. Revision No. 128 of 2002 was preferred by the complainant - O.P. No. 2 and the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-X, Ranchi by a detailed order dated 17th October, 2003 set aside the order impugned passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and remanded back the matter for passing an order afresh after making further enquiry. However, on reconsideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case only against Salomi Tigga for the alleged offence under Sections 323/406/419/468/ & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons. The complainant - O.P. No. 2 against the said order filed Cr. Revision No. 133 of 2004 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was heard on transfer by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. X, Ranchi who by the order dated 06.08.2005 directed summons to be issued also to the petitioners Ela Tigga, Urjila Tigga & Parmila Tigga. Having been dissatisfied with the impugned order the petitioners of both the Cr. Revision No. 133 of 2004 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was heard on transfer by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. X, Ranchi who by the order dated 06.08.2005 directed summons to be issued also to the petitioners Ela Tigga, Urjila Tigga & Parmila Tigga. Having been dissatisfied with the impugned order the petitioners of both the Cr. Revisions filed an application u/s 245 Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge on the sole ground that the complainant - O.P. No. 2 had filed the complaint case with the intention to grab the property and dues of their father Kushal Tigga by implicating them into malicious prosecution though they were innocent and no offence was attracted against any of them. They were married daughters, living at their matrimonial homes. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P.P.N. Roy appearing for the petitioners in both the revisions submitted that there was no material at all against the petitioners that they had ever assaulted the complainant or that any properly was entrusted to any of them to which they allegedly misappropriated or that any of them had ever impersonated for gains. Even the allegation of committing forgery for the purpose of cheating or defrauding any one could not be prima facie made out against them. No material could be brought on the record in support of the allegation that the petitioners used any forged document as genuine knowing the same to be forged. It would be relevant to mention, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate who had earlier dismissed the Complaint Petition u/s 203 Cr.P.C. had on the same set of facts and materials issued summons to the petitioners without disclosing the circumstances and assigning reasons for backing out from his earlier findings which cannot be sustained under law. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel Md. Safique Rahman appearing for the complainant - O.P. No. 2 in both the revisions strongly controverted the contentions and submitted that the petitioners with their mother Salomi Tigga had obtained the signature of the Complainant - O.P. No. 2 on the blank paper with the ulterior motive, however, with the assurance that the said signature of the paper would be used in realization of the dues of her husband from the Department. When the petitioners produced the application before the Department a succession certificate was demanded from the legal heirs and the complainant when came to learn filed the Succession Case No. 219 of 2001 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in which the petitioners herein filed their objections claiming themselves to be the daughters of the deceased Kushal Tigga. After examination of the witnesses and upon adjudication of the succession case learned Judicial Commissioner found the complainant - O.P. No. 2 being the legal heir and successor of the deceased Kushal Tigga against which the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2006 before this Court u/s 384 of the Indian Succession Act, which is pending decision. There was specific allegation against the petitioners and their mother Salomi Tigga that they had taken the assistance of one Anil Kujur, who had assaulted the complainant and extended threat that she would be eliminated. The learned Judicial Magistrate having been satisfied with the prima facie case against the petitioners dismissed their petition which was preferred for the discharge for the alleged offence under Sections 323/406/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the Succession Case No. 219 of 2001 that was filed seeking succession certificate was decided in favour of the complainant - O.P. No. 2 though the petitioners had filed objection therein claiming themselves to be the daughters of the deceased Kushal Tigga. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioners have preferred Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 2006 u/s 384 of the Indian Succession Act before this Court, which is yet to be decided, for that the prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the O.P. No. 2. 6. I find from the evidence recorded in course of enquiry and before framing of charge though the allegation of Section 323 was directed against one Anil Kujur that he assaulted the complainant and threatened to do away her life. Similarly, the allegation u/s 406/419/468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted prima facie against the mother of the petitioner Salomi Tigga and the witnesses failed to produce any chit of paper. Similarly, the allegation u/s 406/419/468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was attracted prima facie against the mother of the petitioner Salomi Tigga and the witnesses failed to produce any chit of paper. None of them testified that it were the petitioners who converted the signature of the complainant on the blank paper into valuable security for their illegal gains. However, I find that the petitioners filed their objection in the succession case claiming themselves to be the daughters of Kushal Tigga but the succession case was decided in favour of the complainant - O.P. No. 2 by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi against which they have preferred Misc. Appeal before this Court. 7. From the plain reading of the entire case record, I find that the dispute between the parties appears to be of civil nature and in the given facts and circumstances no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioners and therefore, I find it to be a fit case for their discharge. I observed that the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in the given situation would tantamount to miscarriage of justice. There appears merit in both the petitions. Accordingly the Cr. Revisions are allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The petitioners are discharged from their criminal liability. 8. This order will not influence and prejudice the rights of the parties in any civil dispute. Revisions allowed.