Execution of a legally valid document with disputed stamp duty does not constitute forgery or fraud under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Pravin S. Patil, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. By this application, the applicants are seeking to quash and set aside the First Information Report registered vide Crime No.1098/2023 with the Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati City, District-Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In short, the gist of the allegation against the present applicants as per the prosecution is that, the present applicants and non-applicant no.2 jointly filed an application dated 17.08.1993 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati for exchange of the suit field owned by non-applicant no.2 with field owned by applicants. Accordingly, Revenue Case was registered and permission was granted by an order dated 07.10.1993 by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer to exchange the suit field. However, lateron it is alleged that the present applicants got the exchange-deed of suit field without consent of non-applicant no.2 and said exchange-deed was not fully stamped as required under the provisions of law. The deficit stamp duty was paid in the year 2008. Hence, according to non-applicant no.2, by using the incomplete document, the present applicants mutated their names in revenue record as an owners of the property and committed fraud on non-applicant no.2. On the basis of these allegations, above said offence came to be registered against them.

4. The present applicants challenged the registration of the offence mainly on the ground that a civil dispute with regard to the same property has been already decided in their favour up to this court in various proceedings and accordingly the documents namely exchange-deed had attended finality as per the judgments of the civil court. Hence, the present complaint lodged by the non-applicant no.2 is out of an ulterior motive to prosecute the applicants in a vexatious proceeding. Hence, the applicants prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceeding registered against them.

5. The learned APP appearing for the State strongly opposed the application by stating that after registration of the offence, they have procured the certified copy of the documents from the office of Sub-Registrar, Amravati. From the perusal of the said document, it is revealed that the registration of the said document was completed on 26.11.2008 by paying the deficit fees. As such, mutation of property to the names of applicants in revenue record on the basis of documents established the fact that the present applicants had committed the offence registered against them and, therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere at this stage by this court by exercising inherent powers.

6. The Non-Applicant No.2 strongly opposed the application and by her affidavit dated 11.01.2024, stated that the alleged exchange-deed dated 20.12.1993 is a false and fraudulent document and on the basis of said document, applicants are trying to grab the property of non-applicant no.2. She further stated that the exchange- deed was registered for the first time on 26.11.2008 and, therefore, all the entries taken by the applicants in revenue record earlier to year 2008 is nothing but forgery on the part of applicants. She further stated that the said document is not registered as per the provisions of law and, therefore, it is not a valid document in the eyes of law. As such, on the basis of this submission, prayed for rejection of the application.

7. We have heard the rival parties and their respective submission. We have also perused the entire recor