Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Ram Lakhan Sahni, Son of Late Chhatu Sahni - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16890 of 2012
Decided on : 01-11-2017
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 464 and 465 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Forgery – Cognizance of offence – There is no allegation that petitioner altered or tampered a document or he obtained a document by practising deception from a person not in control of his senses nor there is any allegation that petitioner made or executed a document claiming to be of someone else or authorized by someone else – Petitioner signed transfer order claiming himself to be Secretary of Society – Ingredients of offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code are wholly not made out – Moreover, claim of petitioner to be Secretary of Society is a bona fide disputed claim which is yet to be resolved by a competent authority and for that reason, petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted – Offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code for which cognizance has been taken, are prima facie not disclosed even if whole complaint is accepted as true – Criminal proceeding has been manifestly instituted with mala fide and ulterior motive which are grounds for quashing FIR – Impugned order quashed. (Paras 13 to 17)
1. The petitioner is accused in Complaint Case No. 647(C) of 1996 filed by the State Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Bihar a registered society through its Secretary Raj Kishore Singh in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. A copy of the complaint petition is at Annexure-1.
2. By the impugned order dated 11.10.1996 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint case for the offence under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The challenge is on the ground that the offence for which cognizance has been taken is not made out on bare perusal of the complaint petition and secondly on the ground that criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has maliciously been instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance due to private and personal grudge between the complainant Raj Kishore Singh and the petitioner as both claimed to be the Secretary of the Complainant-Society.
4. It is worth to mention here that after death of Raj Kishore Singh (the original complainant) opposite party no. 2 Ratneshwar Prasad Singh was substituted as complainant in the complaint case aforesaid.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 resisted the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has deliberately and knowingly approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after a long delay of about 18 years. There is no genuine claim of the petitioner to be Secretary of the Complainant-Society after recall of Annexure-2, dated 24.08.1995, by Annexure-3, dated 06.09.1995. The petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently pretended himself to be Secretary, used a false letter pad posing himself to be the Secretary of the Society and passed some transfer orders as alleged in the complaint petition. Learned counsel further submits that this Court should not interfere in the summoning order unless there is strong material to justify that the continuance of criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of the court and shall cause failure of justice which is not available herein.
6. According to the complaint petition, the complainant is a registered Society and its Secretary is Late Raj Kishore Singh. The Society has got its own rules and regulations and it functions according to its Rules. There is an Executive Committee of the Society under Rule 8 for three years consisting of an Ex-officio Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Secretary, a Treasurer, five members amongst life members. It is admitted that the petitioner was a life member of the Society. Raj Kishore Singh is said to be elected in the general meeting of the Society on 01.01.1995 as Secretary for three years.
Allegation is that the petitioner was desirous to intervene with the functioning of the Society. However, could not succeed. Though the petitioner was never an office-bearer of the Society, however, the petitioner created a forged and fabricated letter pad of the Society showing himself as Secretary of the Society. The petitioner issued a transfer order, in respect of Jitendra Narayan Singh an Inspector for Protection of Cruelty against animals, Khagaria, posing himself as a Secretary of the Society. The transfer orders issued by the petitioner are Annexure-2A and 2B to the complaint petition.
7. Submission of the petitioner is that the State of Bihar vide his letter dated 24.08.1995 at Annexure-2 recognized Mr. K. N. Sahay as Chairman of the Society and the petitioner as Secretary of the Society. When the complainant Raj Kishore Singh raised objection on recognition of the petitioner as Secretary, the letter at Annexure-2 was recalled by letter at Annexure-3 dated 06.09.1995 and the matter was referred to the Inspector General of Registration for deciding the claim of the complainant and the petitioner on the post of Secretary. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid Anenxure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 10891 of 1995. The said writ application was disposed of on 13.07.2010 observing th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
