Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1128 (PAT)

Nirbhay Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar

2013-09-16

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 5.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 1395C of 2005. 2. The background facts stated in the complaint petition are that the petitioner is the cousin brother of the Informant, whereas the rest of the accused persons were brother-in-law and brother of his father, the deceased, who were effectively controlling the house hold affairs. However co-accused Satish Kumar was a greedy man and tried all kinds of tricks to break the family. In pursuance thereof he got his father's fake signature executed on agreement to sale for a certain piece of land. After the death of his father the complainant filed a Title Suit before the Sub Judge, Saharsa numbered as S.T. No. 33 of 1991. Since he remained engaged because of the death of his father and financial difficulties an ex-parte order was obtained by the said accused and petitioner. In the said Title Suit his father was not sought to be examined. He however got the signature of his father matched and on the basis of the hand-writing expert he concluded that the signature was fake. Fact of the matter was that his father was on death bed on the date of execution of the agreement. He also found out that the stamp vendor and the deed writer had prepared the documents in conspiracy with the rest of the accused persons. Later on he filed a Miscellaneous appeal against the ex-parte order in the Title Suit and got examined .the signature of his father on various documents through various sources from which he confirmed that the signature was false. On the date of occurrence the accused persons abused him and assaulted him as also committed theft of his personal belongings. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that from the facts disclosed in the complaint petition there is no doubt that the dispute centers around the signature of the complainant's father on an agreement for sale. The suit in which also the agreement for sale is an issue for adjudication is pending before the civil Court. Under these circumstances, the present criminal complaint would be a multiplicity of proceedings and deserves to be quashed. 4. The suit in which also the agreement for sale is an issue for adjudication is pending before the civil Court. Under these circumstances, the present criminal complaint would be a multiplicity of proceedings and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant submits that since his father's signature was found forged by a competent authority, therefore the accused should be proceeded against. Further submission is that since cognizance was taken considering these materials this Court should restrain itself from interfering in the matter. 5. Undoubtedly the cause of action mentioned in the present Complaint is also subject matter of the civil suit and hence, in my opinion, the continuance of the present complaint would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Under such circumstances, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 1395C of 2005 is hereby set aside. 7. However, the quashment of the present proceeding shall have no bearing on any civil litigation pending between the parties. Application allowed.