Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 155 (JHR)

Srimati Yasomati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER :- Heard Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. G.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 417 of 2009 including the order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition instituted by the opposite party No. 2 herein is that the complainant is the owner and is in possession of a piece of land, being portion of Plot No. 131, Sub-plot No. 131/B, which he had purchased from Smt. Nillie Rao, measuring an area of 7 kattha 8 Chhatak, by virtue of Registered deed of Sale No. 12148 dated 04.12.1984. It has been alleged that the petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law of his first wife and when the complainant was posted in Ranchi as an Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board in the year 1973-1979 and 19801985 he had purchased the said piece of land but the petitioner No. 2 entering into a criminal conspiracy had prepared a false sale deed dated 19.12.1995. It has further been alleged that the forged sale deed stands in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and when he came to know about the same on 22.10.2008 a Panchayti was also held on 26.12.2008 to settle the dispute but after the negotiations failed, a complaint case was instituted against the petitioner. 4. After the complaint petition was filed the same was referred to the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registering and instituting a case and pursuant thereto Sadar P. S. Case No. 20 of 2009 was instituted. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case apparently is that of a civil nature as the entire dispute revolves around the land in question. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case apparently is that of a civil nature as the entire dispute revolves around the land in question. He has further submitted that the only way to find out as to whether the sale deed was false and fabricated was to either get the signature verified or by taking appropriate remedies before the proper forum for cancellation of the alleged sale deed. He has further referred to the case of Anirudh Singh & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2006 (2) JLJR 118 and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2009) (4) East Cr C 6 (SC): (2009) 8 SCC 751 . 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, has referred to the counter affidavit which contains the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory with respect to the hand writing identification on the original documents in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009 and in the said report, it was opined that the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S1, S2 and A1 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly, stamped and marked Q1 to Q20. He further submits that in fact the anticipatory bail preferred on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 was also rejected by this Court. He has also submitted that after initiation of the criminal case the petitioners have preferred a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 435 of 2010 which has been filed only by way of defence to absolve themselves from the criminal case. In this context, he has referred to the judgment in the case of Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras v. Ved Prakash and Others reported in [2013] SCCR 682. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the records, I find that in the original complaint case which was instituted by the complainant opposite party No. 2 specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners with respect to the forged sale deed dated 19.12.1995 which was also registered by the District Registrar on 16.01.1996. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the records, I find that in the original complaint case which was instituted by the complainant opposite party No. 2 specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners with respect to the forged sale deed dated 19.12.1995 which was also registered by the District Registrar on 16.01.1996. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which has been annexed with the counter affidavit clearly discloses that the signatures also vary and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner with respect to the verification of the signatures seems to be misconceived. As regards, the title suit which has been filed by the petitioners being Title Suit No. 435 of 2010, the same has been filed after initiation of the criminal case with a prayer that the plaintiffs (Petitioners) right, title and interest over the property fully described in the scheduled be declared and possession be confirmed. No doubt a particular set of act may constitute both a civil wrong as well as a criminal offence. Merely because a civil flavour is sought to be inserted in a criminal case the same would not mean that a criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to be continued. 8. In the complaint case specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners of conspiring and using a false sale deed which facts has been substantiated by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and therefore, when there is an element of criminal intent on the part of the petitioners and which is apparent from a perusal of the complaint petition, merely because a civil remedy may also be available the same does not preclude the petitioners from facing a criminal prosecution. In the case of Anirudh Singh & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr this Court had quashed the entire criminal proceedings on the grounds that the signatories or executants of the sale deed were alive or not and whether the deed is forged or not can be decided only by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) East Cr C 6 (sc): (2009) 8 SCC 751 . It was held as follows:- 20. 9. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) East Cr C 6 (sc): (2009) 8 SCC 751 . It was held as follows:- 20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. 21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor it it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. 10. The allegations in the present case cannot be said to be of such a nature so as to come within the parameters of a civil liability necessitating/availing of only civil remedies by the opposite party No. 2. 11. There has been specific allegation against the petitioners which has subsequently been proved by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and in such circumstance when there is an element of criminality into the allegations levelled against the petitioners this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not empowered to quash the entire criminal proceedings. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 was with respect to the stay of a civil suit till the decision of a criminal case and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the said judgment is not at all applicable. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that no case is made out by the petitioners to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is, hereby dismissed.