Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 2061
PATNA HIGH COURT
Gopal Prasad, J.
Mohammad Sadiq
Versus
Bhagwan Gond : Zainuddin Mian : Jagarnath Prasad : Saudagar Dusadh : State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3 of 1998
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
The central legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of forgery in a sale deed related to a land dispute are considered a civil matter falling under the jurisdiction of the civil court, and the criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide such disputes.
Headnote:
Forgery - Land Dispute - The court held that the allegation of forgery in a sale deed related to a land dispute was of a civil nature and fell under the jurisdiction of the civil court. The criminal court acquitted the accused persons as there was no evidence of forgery and the matter concerned a civil dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that a sale deed related to land was forged and fabricated, with wrongly mentioned details of parentage and boundaries. The trial court acquitted the accused, stating it was a civil dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of forgery and held that the matter concerned a civil dispute falling under the jurisdiction of the civil court. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the alleged forgery in the sale deed related to a land dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the criminal court or the civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the allegation of forgery in the sale deed was of a civil nature and did not come under the definition of a false document. It held that the criminal court had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed parentage or rights of the parties in a civil dispute.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused persons by the trial court.
Gopal Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State.
2. This Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05. 06. 1996, passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwan, by which he has acquitted the accused persons for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code that allegation made is of civil nature and there is no evidence regarding forgery and only Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the document as forged and hence acquitted.
3. The prosecution case as alleged that sale deed was executed with regard to land by the complainant Samrajia Devi is forged and fabricated and it has been asserted that Samrajia has wrongly mention as daughter of Sheo Baharan Dusadh and it has wrongly mentioned that Rama Shankar Tripathi is in the northern boundary as well as wrongly mentioned that Bagwatia Devi is the wife of Sheo Bharan. However, on the complaint, the complainant has examined on oath. Cognizance taken. The statement of witnesses recorded before charge. At the trial eight witnesses examined. Considering the evidence the trial court held that it is a case of civil dispute and acquitted the accused persons.
4. Perused the impugned order and evidence of witnesses there is no evidence for committing forgery and mere allegation and evidence about the name of parentage having been wrongly mentioned does not come under the definition of false document. The matter concerns with dispute in regard to land.
5. Hence I do not find any merit in this appeal and occurrence is of the year 1986 and matter concerns with civil dispute and criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide either right of the parties or disputed parentage of the person.
6. Hence this appeal is accordingly dismissed.
