Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 586 (PAT)

Most. Asarfi Kaur v. State of Bihar

2014-05-09

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : JYOTI SARAN, J.:–None appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Rajesh Sinha for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are present. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the State and the opposite parties and I have perused the records. 4. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with G.R. No. 637 of 1989, Trial No. 11 of 2002 arising from Nokha P.S. Case No. 53 of 1989 registered for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 120B, 197, 198 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the trial court has acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 of the offences. 5. The prosecution case as according to the allegations set out in the FIR in brief charges the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 of setting up the sister of the accused Prahlad Tiwary as daughter of late Hari Narain Tiwary who happened to be the brother of the husband of the informant and by causing such impersonation getting her name mutated in the survey records. According to the informant her father-in-law Mani Tiwary was survived by two sons, namely, Jiwanandan Tiwary and Hari Narayan Tiwary. According to the informant whereas Hari Narain Tiwary was unmarried and died issueless more than 50 years back, the other son Jiwanandan Tiwary was married to her and of the wedlock two daughters were born, namely, Barmawati and Umapati, who were married to Umakant Tiwary and Shrikant Pandey respectively. 6. It is the case of the informant that after the death of Jiwanandan Tiwary the daughters are residing with the informant and are looking after the properties. As per the allegations set out, one Prahlad Tiwary who is a co-villager, with an intention to grab the property of the informant, set up his own sister Shyam Dulari Devi as daughter of Hari Narain Tiwary and got her name mutated in the land records after obtaining certificate from the Pramukh and Sarpanch. The informant filed a written complaint before the Collector who ordered an enquiry and the S.D.O. while upholding the complaint reiterated that the fraud if any, was not against the complainant but with the Court. The informant filed a written complaint before the Collector who ordered an enquiry and the S.D.O. while upholding the complaint reiterated that the fraud if any, was not against the complainant but with the Court. It is on this basis that the FIR was instituted and upon charge sheet being submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and the matter was put on trial. Eight witnesses were examined by the witnesses to drive home the charges, most of whom were related to the informant. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are the son-in-laws of the informant. P.W. 7 is Samdhi. P.W. 5 is the informant himself. 7. The records manifest that all the witnesses led by the prosecution were related to the informant and all of them were born after the death of late Hari Narain Tiwary. Thus there was no evidence to show whether or not Hari Narain Tiwary was married and whether he died issueless. Even when the informant charged the opposite parties of forgery surprisingly no such document was placed on record. Records further manifest that the issue whether Shyam Dulari Devi was the daughter of Hari Narain Tiwary, was a subject matter of litigation pending in a proceeding before this Court. 8. The issue whether Shyam Dulari Devi was the daughter of Late Hari Narain Tiwary or not, certainly could not be adjudicated in a criminal proceeding for the issue is purely civil in nature and until such time that the informant was able to drive home such charges in an appropriate proceedings, there was no occasion to allege impersonation or forgery against the opposite parties. The evidence adduced by the prosecution not being satisfactory enough to support the charges it was rightly rejected by the trial court. Whether Shyam Dulari Devi was daughter of late Hari Narayan Tiwary was already a subject matter of a civil proceedings and until such time it was settled, the criminal prosecution would not continue against the accused nor any charge of forgery or impersonation could be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. This criminal revision is accordingly dismissed. 10. Let the lower court records be returned to the court below forthwith. ?