Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1139 (JHR)

Neelam Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-02

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 2. Both these applications have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P.Case no.1827 of 2011 including the order dated 14.10.2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. 3. It is the case of the complainant that one Chandi Prasad Mahto who had executed a power of attorney in favour of complainant filed an application before the Circle Officer for issuance of a genealogical table. On that application Halka Karamchari, the petitioner, Dubai Murmu made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Circle Officer wherein it was shown that Budhu Mahto died leaving behind sole daughter Bhusia Mahatain. Subsequently, the Halka Karamchari at the instance of the co-accused Padam Lochan Mahto submitted another report on 12.9.2009 whereby it was shown that Budhu Mahto died leaving behind two daughters, Bhusia Mahatain and Domni Mahatain. The Circle Officer on getting the said report sent it to the department of Revenue. According to the complainant said report is false as Budhu Mahto had had only one daughter, Bhusia Mahatain whereas Domni Mahatain never happens tobe the daughter of Budhu Mahto. On such allegation, complaint was registered as C.P.Case No.1827 of 2011. On holding enquiry, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner, Dubai Murmu, the then Halka Karamchari, Dhanbad and also against the petitioner Nilam Sinha, the then Circle Inspector. That order is under challenge. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Neelam Sinha has never been alleged to have prepared any report rather the second report dated 12.9.2009 had been prepared by the Circle Officer though the petitioner during enquiry had put signature over the genealogical table but accepting this fact to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioners. 5. 5. As against that, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that earlier on an application of Chandi Prasad Mahto, a genealogical table was prepared on the basis of the said report submitted by the petitioner (Dubai Murmu) wherein Bhusia Mahatain was shown to have died leaving behind one daughter whereas in the second report, though it has been prepared by the Circle Officer but that report had been prepared on the basis of genealogical table over which the petitioner (Neelam Sinha) has also put his signature wherein it has been shown that Budhu Mahto died leaving behind Bhusia Mahatain and Domni Mahatain and this report was prepared in connivance with other accused person so that other accused person may lay claim over the land of the complainant. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that earlier when a report was submitted by the petitioner(Dubai Murmu) Bhusia Mahatain was shown to be the sole daughter of Budhu Mahto whereas in the second report which though had not been prepared by the petitioner (Dubai Murmu) but was prepared by the Circle Officer, Dhanbad. wherein it has been shown that Budhu Mahto had two daughters namely, Bhusia Mahatain and Domni Mahatain. The said report though has not been prepared by the petitioner (Dubai Murmu) but there has been signature over the genealogical table of the petitioner Nilam Sinha on the basis of which report dated 12.9.2009 was prepared by the Circle Officer. Accepting all these allegations to be true, it is to be considered as to whether any offence of forgery is made out or not ? 7. Straightway, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another [ (2009) 8 SCC 751 ] wherein their Lordships after having regard to the provision contained in Section 470 of the Indian Penal Code as well as other provisions relating to forgery did observe as follows: “The condition precedent for an offence under Section 470 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property ( even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with other accused.” 8. The Court has further observed that analysis of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories as follows: “The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a documents in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not be reason of: (a) unsoundness of mind; (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a ‘false statement’, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses”. 9. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case equally applies in this case as the case in hand never falls in any of the aforesaid three categories where one can be said to have committed offence of forgery. Simply for putting signature over the genealogical table cannot, one cannot be said to have committed offence of forgery. Therefore, whatever allegations have been made in the complaint, it never constitute offence of forgery. 10. Simply for putting signature over the genealogical table cannot, one cannot be said to have committed offence of forgery. Therefore, whatever allegations have been made in the complaint, it never constitute offence of forgery. 10. At the same time, the allegation made in the complaint also does not constitute offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code as the necessary ingredients constituting offence is lacking. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.1827 of 2011 including the order dated 14.10.2011 is hereby quashed. 12. In the result, both the applications stand allowed. Applications allowed.