Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 1249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHIVAJI PANDEY, J.
Ashfaq Ahmad Khan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & another - Opposite Partyies
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21105 of 2011
Decided on : 20-09-2012
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vindya Keshri Singh, Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Manish Kumar No.13, Mr. Rohit Kumar.
For the State: Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Dispute - Indian Penal Code - 420, 468, 467, 471 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, specifically sections 420, 468, 467, and 471, and their interpretation in the context of the case. The court highlighted the distinction between civil and criminal disputes and emphasized that if a dispute is essentially of a civil nature but has been given a cloak of criminal offense, the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. The court also referred to the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And others, reported in (2006)6 SCC 736, to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of forgery and fraudulent mutation of land. The complainant alleged that the accused had created a forged document to wrongfully obtain mutation of the land, which was originally transferred to her by her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations primarily constituted a civil dispute and had been given the appearance of a criminal case. It emphasized that criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for other remedies available in law and that the complainant should file a civil case for appropriate relief.
Issues: The key issue was whether the allegations constituted a criminal offense or a civil dispute, and whether the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the court's process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes. It relied on the principle that if a dispute is essentially of a civil nature but has been given a cloak of criminal offense, the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 23.7.2010, stating that it was not sustainable in law. It allowed the opposite party to file a proper case before the appropriate civil court for redressal of her grievance.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.7.2010 passed in C.R. No. 84 of 2009, arising out of Samastipur P.S. Case No.447 of 2005 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. From the First Information Report/complaint petition it appears that the complainant-cum-informant Jubeda Khatoon, wife of Md. Sahin has made an allegation that her husband had transferred the land bearing Kheshra Nos.3201 and 3202, area 12 Dhurs attached with Khaprapose house by registered deed dated 30.8.2000 by way of Den Mehar and she was continuing in possession from the date of execution of the registered deed. It has been alleged that the petitioners who are accused had greedy eyes over the property always wanted to usurp the same. In this connection on 25.9.2000 accused nos. 1 to 4 with the help of accused nos. 5 to 9 created a forged Panchnama giving bribe to one Sheo Shankar Mahto and got mutation of the land.
4. On her complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samastipur enquired into the matter and found that forged document was created by the accused persons and wrongly got mutation of the land and recommended for taking action against them. It has been further alleged that the document dated 30.8.2000 was/is completely a forged and fabricated document and this had been created with an intention to deprive her from the valuable property. A case was registered as Complaint Case No.883 of 2005 and the Magistrate in exercise of power under 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) sent the matter to the police for institution and investigation of the case. The case was registered as Samastipur P.S. Case No. 447 of 2005 under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The police after investigation found the case to be false and accordingly submitted final form vide Final Form No. 160 of 2007 dated 30.6.2007. While the investigation was pending the complainant/informant filed a protest petition on 10.5.2006 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur P.S. Case No.447 of 2005. The protest petition was treated as complaint petition and after enquiry took cognizance under sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that these petitioners had moved before this Court in anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 44644 of 2010, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.4.2011 did not treat the case of civil dispute. After refusal of anticipatory bail, the petitioners filed the present quashing application on 1.7.2011 and this Court vide order dated 16.8.2001 stayed the proceedings of the court below.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the nature of allegation that has been made in the complaint petition it is primarily a civil dispute and by creating a camouflage, the present case has been filed giving label of criminal offence which is impermissible. He further submits that the petitioners are basically challenging the mutation that has been done on the basis of the Panchnama asserting the Panchnama to be illegal on the ground that Panchnama could not have been created in repugnant to registered deed. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that getting of the order of mutation on the basis of Panchnama branding it to be fraudulent one cannot constitute criminal offence as there is no claim that parties to Panchnama have been impersonated nor there is claim that signature appearing in Panchnama are tampered or manufactured and claimed that the present case is completely covered by judgment reported Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 99 SC.
8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has subm
