Back
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Kamala Devi Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.—This instant prayer for quashing of proceeding relates to GR Case No. 830 of 2020, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 209 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.
2. The allegations as set out in the first information report is that the opposite party no. 2/FIR maker purchased a property being premises no. 54-A Kali Krishna Tagore Street Kolkata-700007 in the year 2011, wherein the petitioner herein is a tenant of a shop room situated at the ground floor allegedly since 1975-76. The FIR maker after purchasing the said property filed ejectment suit being 130 of 2017 with a prayer for evicting the petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of opposite party no.2 herein/FIR maker on 28.02.2018. Later on the opposite party no. 2 initiated execution proceeding being no. 72 of 2018 and in execution of the said decree, vacant khas possession of the said tenanted shop room was handed over to the opposite party no. 2 in presence of police. However, on 21.12.2018 the said opposite party no. 2 c
Forgery – Charge of forgery cannot be imposed or sustained against a person against whom prima facie allegation of making false letter in question has not been established.
The court affirmed that civil disputes do not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of forgery and that both can arise from the same facts independently.
Forged signature – Quash of proceedings - Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and cannot answer with regard to the disputed questions involved in the matter.
The court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot proceed for a civil dispute, especially when multiple FIRs arise from the same cause, indicating an abuse of process.
To attract the offence of forgery, the accused must be the maker of the forged document. The court also emphasized the importance of providing due opportunity to address arguments and the limitations....
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
The court established that civil disputes can coexist with criminal allegations, and the merits of such allegations must be determined through trial, not preemptively dismissed.
Mistakenly representing both complainant and accused does not constitute forgery; no prima facie case under Section 466 of the IPC found.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
