2017 Supreme(Pat) 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR, J.
Mahanth Bishambhar Saran Deojee Chela Rash Bihari Saran Deojee and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Cr. Misc. No. 6548 of 2013
Decided On : 03-10-2017
For the Petitioner: Chandra Kant and Navin Kumar.
For the Respondents: Rita Verma.
Forgery must be committed for an offence to be attracted under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Procedure - IPC 420, 467, 468 - Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC - The court discussed the allegations against the petitioner No. 2 regarding the execution of sale deeds in the year 1999 to 2000 with respect to the lands belonging to Koiladewa Math in favor of petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 7, and found that no ingredient of making forged document as well as cheating to the complainant is made out in this case. The court referred to the definitions of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under Section 415 and Section 420 of the IPC, and also discussed the provisions of making a false document under Section 464, forgery of valuable security under Section 467, and forgery for the purpose of cheating under Section 468 of the IPC. The court concluded that unless forgery is committed, no offence is attracted under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. The court also cited a previous case where similar circumstances led to the quashing of the cognizance order and subsequent criminal proceedings of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant was appointed as Mahanth of Koiladewa Math, and the case arose from the execution of sale deeds in respect of the math property by petitioner No. 2, which the complainant claimed to be illegal as the property belonged to the Math.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no ingredient of making forged document as well as cheating to the complainant is made out in this case.
Issues: Allegations against petitioner No. 2 regarding the execution of sale deeds, and the applicability of Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that unless forgery is committed, no offence is attracted under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cognizance order dated 3.7.2012 as well as the subsequent criminal proceeding of the petitioners.
ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code"), seeking setting aside of order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the learned CJM, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 1154 of 2012 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The brief fact giving rise to this case is that the complainant was appointed as Mahanth of Koiladewa Math by order dated 5.1.2009 by the Administrator-cum-OSD of the Bihar State Religious Trust Board, the said appointment was challenged in a writ application vide CWJC No. 9493 of 2010 and in the light of the order passed by the High Court, the Religious Trust Board appointed Mukund Saran as temporary Mahanth of the Math, who took over the charge of the movable and immovable property of the Math. By order dated 9.8.2011 the Bihar State Religious Trust Board declared Koiladewa Math as a public Math. Thereafter, the complainant came to know regarding the sale deeds executed in respect of the math property by petitioner No. 2. Being property of the Math, execution of the sale deeds was illegal. Those sale deeds were executed between the year 1999 to 2000.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complainant earlier himself claimed to be disciple of Bhagwati Saran, who had filed a title suit bearing T.S. No. 23 of 1988 for declaring him as the Mahanth of Koiladewa Math. The basis of His claim is the nomination letter of Hathua Raj and the case was being contested by petitioner No. 1 of this application, Mahanth Bishambhar Saran Deojee who also claimed himself as Mahanth of the Math. Both sides claimed that the Math is a public property. He further submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner No. 1 regarding execution of Sale deed. The sale deed has been executed by petitioner No. 2 in the year 1999 to 2000 to petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands were sold to his father in the year 1972 by the then Mahanth and so he had executed the sale deeds and the Math was declared to be a public Math by the Bihar State Religious Trust Board in the year 2011. Learned Counsel further submits that no ingredient of making forged document as well as cheating to the complainant is made out in this case.
3. Contrary to that, learned Counsel appealing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 submits that forged sale deed has been executed by petitioner No. 2 in favour of other accused for the reason that the petitioner No. 2 has/had no right and title over the land in question. So illegally the property belonging to the Math has been sole by the petitioner No. 2.
4. Having considered the rival submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record the Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner No. 2 is that he executed sale deeds in the year 1999 to 2000 with respect to the lands belonging to Koiladewa Math in favour of petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 7, wherein petitioner Nos. 6 and 8 were attesting witnesses. This is also evident that complaint case has not been filed by the purchaser rather by the complainant, claiming Mahanth of the Math at the relevant point of time. Cognizance has been taken in this case under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. Cheating has been defined in Section 415 of the IPC, which reads as follows:-
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the per son so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Whereas Section 420 defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property which reads as follows:-
"Whoever cheats and t