Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 688 (JHR)

Ramdeo Sharan Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-12

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.72/2012 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.07.2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma. 3. Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier Complaint Case being No. 55/2006 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the accused persons alleging therein forgery of some sale deeds on 9.1.1979, 22.5.1982 and 22.1.1983, on which dates, it is alleged that the forged sale deeds were manufactured by the accused persons. The complaint petition was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, Jainagar P.S Case no. 33 of 2006 corresponding to G.R No. 176 of 2006 was instituted and after investigation, the police submitted final form in the said case. Thereafter, the complaint case by way of protest petition was again filed by the opposite party no.2 with the same allegations and upon enquiry, the said complaint cum protest petition has also been rejected by the order dated 04.09.2010. She further submits that the case of the petitioner was that the father of the complainant died in the year 1977, for which death certificate was issued by Panchayat Sewak of Gram Panchayat Jainagar on 28.10.2005 after some verification and it has been alleged that in spite of this, the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons fabricated another death certificate on 24.02.2006, which shows that the complainant's father died on 05.01.1986. She also submits that the Complaint Case No.55/2006 was filed against other accused persons including the petitioner, in which, the police after investigation has submitted final form in favour of the accused and, thereafter the complainant has filed protest petition which was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the learned court vide order dated 04.09.2010, which was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No.1008/2010, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2012. She submits that in the present complaint case, there is same allegation against the petitioner. On these grounds, she submits that there is abuse of process of law and, therefore, entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 4. Mrs. She submits that in the present complaint case, there is same allegation against the petitioner. On these grounds, she submits that there is abuse of process of law and, therefore, entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 4. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner in connivance with other accused has issued forged death certificate and therefore the case has been filed and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 5. Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that this case is arising out of complaint case and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. 6. It appears that the case has been filed alleging therein that forged death certificate has been issued, on which basis the pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased. In Criminal Revision No.1008 of 2010 vide order dated 12.04.2012, following order was passed: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State 04.2012 as also the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.2010 passed by Shri M.C.Narayan, leamed Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.39 of 2009, whereby, the protest petition filed after submission of the final form was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. It appears that a complaint case was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Complaint Case No. 55 of 2006 against the accused persons, alleging therein forgery of some sale deeds on 9.1.1979, 22.5.1982 and 22.1.1983. on which dates, it is alleged that the forged sale deeds were manufactured by the accused persons. The complaint petition was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, Jainagar P.S Case no. 33 of 2006 corresponding to G.R No. 176 of 2006 was instituted. It also appears that after investigation, the police submitted final form in the said case. Thereafter, the complaint case by way of protest petition was again filed by the petitioner with the same allegations and upon enquiry, the said complaint cum protest petition has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 4.9.2010. It also appears that after investigation, the police submitted final form in the said case. Thereafter, the complaint case by way of protest petition was again filed by the petitioner with the same allegations and upon enquiry, the said complaint cum protest petition has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 4.9.2010. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the case of the petitioner was that the father of the petitioner who had allegedly executed the sale deeds, had already died on 16.11.1977, whereas the sale deeds were executed after the date of the death of the petitioner's father. It also appears from the Impugned order that the Pension Payment Order issued in the name of the mother of the petitioner was brought on record which showed that the father of the petitioner had died on 5.1.1986 and accordingly, the mother of the petitioner was getting family pension from the said date of the death of the father of the petitioner nd placing reliance on this document, the Court below has dismissed the Complaint cum protest petition under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order which clearly shows that the mother of the petitioner was getting family pension from 5.1.1986 which was the date of the death of the father of the petitioner, which dearly belied the claim of the petitioner that his father had died on 16.11.1977. As such, I am of the considered view that the Court below has rightly placed reliance on this document to come to the conclusion that the father of the petitioner was alive when the sale deeds were issued. Learned Court below has also rightly held that the disputed question with respect to the date of death of the father of the complainant cannot be decided in criminal side and has rejected the complaint petition. Hence, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction and as such, this application stands dismissed.” 7. Looking into this order, it appears that the dispute of date of death was also there and first protest cum complaint case was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and the police has submitted final form in favour of the accused. Looking into this order, it appears that the dispute of date of death was also there and first protest cum complaint case was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and the police has submitted final form in favour of the accused. This Court in the said criminal revision, has appreciated all the facts, as has been discussed in that order, which was filed for the same cause of action. On the ground of wrong date of death, two complaint cases have been filed. Further, Annexure-15 is the document issued by Calcutta Post Trust, wherein, it has been disclosed that the mother of the complainant-Fahmida Bibi is receiving family pension after the death of her husband. Thus, filing of the present case is abuse of process of law. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.72/2012 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.07.2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma is quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.