Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 166 (MEG)

Bankyrshanlang Jana Nongbet v. State of Meghalaya

2022-06-24

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 17.11.2013 and the consequent proceedings in G.R. Case No. 580 (A) of 2013 arising out of Madanrting P.S Case No. 90(11)2013 under Section 420/468 IPC. 2. Heard Mr. D.K. Warjri, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that an Ejectment Suit No. 1 of 2007 was instituted by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and his deceased father which suit is pending for adjudication before the District Council Court, Shillong. In course of proceedings, the petitioner and his father had filed a joint written statement in the suit. 3. However, the petitioner has also filed a counter claim against respondent No. 3 and in the course thereof, had brought on record the Sale Deed dated 18.08.2004, executed by respondent No. 3 (seller) who is since deceased and the petitioner's deceased father (purchaser) with regard to the sale of a property at Madanrting, Shillong. Another document which is an NOC dated 02.09.2004 issued by the respondent No. 2 (the then headman) in the letter head of the Durbar Shnong Madanrting confirming the said sale transaction was also sought to be introduced as documents in the suit. 4. The respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR before the Madanrting Police Station which was duly acknowledged vide GDE No. 379 dated 17.11.2013 alleging that the 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) dated 02.09.2004 purportedly issued by him was in fact a forged document, inasmuch as, the signature appearing against his name does not belong to him, but was allegedly forged by the petitioner herein. A case was registered as Madanrting P.S Case No. 90(11)2013, under Section 420/468 IPC and on being investigated, charge sheet No. 21/14 dated 18.05.2014 was filed and the petitioner was sent up for trial before the Court of the learned Magistrate First Class, District Council Court, Shillong in G.R Case No. 580 (A) of 2013. The stage of the case is for consideration of charges. 5. The stage of the case is for consideration of charges. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that a look at the charge sheet dated 18.05.2014 would reveal that the Investigating Officer has clearly indicated that the petitioner/accused has stated that the said NOC was done by his late father Dijen Wahlang and as such, assuming but not admitting, if there was any wrongdoing, it should be attributed to his deceased father and not to him. 6. The main thrust of the petitioner's argument is that the said NOC is part of a document produced in a civil suit and as such, the dispute essentially being civil in nature, the same has been sought to be given the colour of a criminal wrong doing. The order dated 28.02.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr at paragraphs 6, 8 & 9 was cited by the petitioner in this regard. 7. Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel along with Mr. S.J. Diengdoh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 have sought to contradict the contention of the petitioner by submitting that at the outset, it may be noticed that the respondent No. 2 who was the Headman at the relevant time was not even a party to the suit between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and it was only when he came to know that the petitioner had sought to introduce the said NOC in the suit that he has lodged the FIR asserting that his signature to the same was forged. 8. It is further submitted that even otherwise, in the plaint filed by the respondent No. 3 as plaintiff, none of the said documents, that is the NOC and the alleged Sale Deed was mentioned in the plaint. It was only when the father of the petitioner who expired during the pendency of the suit that the petitioner herein came up with these documents. The said document including the NOC was sought to be introduced as documents in the suit by the petitioner by filing an application, but the said application was rejected by the Trial Court way back in 2016. 9. The said document including the NOC was sought to be introduced as documents in the suit by the petitioner by filing an application, but the said application was rejected by the Trial Court way back in 2016. 9. Coming to the FIR, it is submitted that this Court has to see whether there is a prima facie case made out, inasmuch as, the charge sheet would show that the said document (NOC) was send for forensic examination and the opinion forthcoming is that the same is a forged document. 10. Again, it is submitted that just because a title suit is pending, it does not mean that a criminal case will not lie if prima facie it is established that a case of forgery is made out. In this regard, the case of Jagmohan Singh v. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2022 wherein vide order dated 05.05.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided on a matter which is similar to the case in hand, was cited by the learned Sr. counsel to buttress his contention. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ex-facie, if the allegation in the FIR disclose an offence whether the persons named in the FIR have committed the offence or not, has to be decided upon trial, in the criminal proceedings. 11. Mr. R. Gurung, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the State respondent No. 1, while endorsing the submission made by the learned Sr. counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 has also submitted that before exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has to be satisfied that on the basis of the FIR and the report of the Investigating Officer, a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner/accused. The fact that an allegation of forgery was made coupled with the fact that the same has been fortified with the opinion of the Forensic Expert would prove that there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner and as such, the FIR and the proceedings thereto may not be done away with at this stage. 12. The fact that an allegation of forgery was made coupled with the fact that the same has been fortified with the opinion of the Forensic Expert would prove that there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner and as such, the FIR and the proceedings thereto may not be done away with at this stage. 12. This Court has given due consideration to the submission and contention of the learned counsels for the parties and is also mindful of the fact that what is called upon here is whether the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised under the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. Facts as stated above need not be repeated, however what can be found is that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 pending in the District Council Court, Shillong. In course of such proceedings, the petitioner has sought to introduce certain documents which includes the No Objection Certificate (NOC) said to have been issued by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the deceased father of the petitioner, who was also made a party in the said civil suit between the parties therein. It appears that the respondent No. 2 came to know of the intention of the petitioner to introduce the said NOC in the suit and has lodged an FIR alleging that the NOC was a forgery at the instance of the petitioner herein resulting in the criminal proceedings referred hereto. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the said NOC is a document pertaining to a civil proceeding, challenge to its authenticity in a criminal proceeding is beyond the scope of law and precedents and the same has to be proved only before the civil court without giving the matter the colour of a criminal wrongdoing. 15. The respondents on the other hand has maintained that notwithstanding the pendency of a civil dispute between the parties, where there is an element of criminality as regard the conduct of any of the parties, then there is no bar for the court to proceed with the criminal trial independently. 16. 15. The respondents on the other hand has maintained that notwithstanding the pendency of a civil dispute between the parties, where there is an element of criminality as regard the conduct of any of the parties, then there is no bar for the court to proceed with the criminal trial independently. 16. The case of Jagmohan Singh (supra) cited by the respondents 2 & 3 would reveal that under similar circumstances wherein the accused/respondents therein have been accused of forging a Will upon which apparently a criminal proceeding ensued, on being approached the High Court has quashed the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant therein has not challenged the authenticity of the said Will in a court of law and also that the respondents has brought a suit for injunction against the complainant therein. The Apex Court while reversing the findings of the High Court has held that since the allegations made in the FIR disclose an offence, the same has to be decided upon trial. It is further held that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, should not embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. 17. It is well settled that the High Court dealing with the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it comes to quashing of an FIR or the proceedings thereto is to be guided by certain parameters. There are a catena of cases dealing with the subject, however in the landmark case of State of Haryana & Ors v. Bhajan Lal & Ors: 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, at para 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Court has laid down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: '(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge'. 18. Following the said guidelines, it is noticed that in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 9 has held that none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC has been found to exist after the investigation is completed, neither the FIR nor the charge sheet contain any reference to the essential requirements underlying Section 420, therefore continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner therein would only amount to an abuse of power of the process where a civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal wrong doing. 19. 19. In the case under scrutiny, however from the investigation report, it appears that there has been disclosed a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner for which charges under the relevant sections of law has to be framed. 20. The contention that an issue being the subject matter of a civil dispute cannot be stifled only to introduce it as an issue in a criminal proceeding as was done in the case of the petitioner, cannot be accepted by this Court as independently, it has been established that on the basis of the said FIR, an offence has been made out (subject to proof by evidence) and accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that no case has been made out to enable due exercise of its inherent power under Section 482. 21. To further clarify the position, in the case of Lalmuni Devi (Smt) v. State of Bihar & Ors: (2001) 2 SCC 17 , referred to by the respondent No. 1, at para 8 of the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: '8. There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts, it cannot be stated, at this prima facie stage, that this is a frivolous complaint. The High Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could not have been quashed'. 22. In view of the above, this Court finds that this is not a case where the inherent power can be exercised as apparently there does not appear to be any abuse of the process of the Court nor will ends of justice not be met if the proceedings under challenge is allowed to continue. Consequently, this petition lacks merits and the same cannot be sustained. 23. Petition dismissed accordingly and stands disposed of. No costs.