Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Tapas Mukherjee - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Opposite Parties
C.R.R. No. 1012 of 2016 With CRAN 3 of 2016 (Old No. CRAN 4106 of 2016)
Decided On : 14-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradip Ray, Mr. Ujjal Ray.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Ms. Moumita Pandit, Ms. Ritushree Banerjee, Mr. Bhaskar Mondal, Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P., Mr. Ananda Keshari.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the intent to deceive is essential for forgery, and civil remedies do not preclude criminal liability when criminal elements are present.
Headnote:
Criminal - Forgery - IPC Sections 463, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B - The court interpreted the provisions related to forgery and the intent required to establish such an offense, concluding that the allegations warranted criminal proceedings rather than mere civil remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of fraudulently including additional Dag numbers in a Power of Attorney, leading to a complaint and subsequent criminal charges for forgery and related offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense of forgery, supported by evidence collected during the investigation, and determined that the case involved criminal elements beyond a mere civil dispute.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed based on the argument that the matter was purely civil in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intent to deceive is crucial in establishing forgery, and the presence of criminal overtones justified the continuation of the proceedings.
Result: The revision application was dismissed, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
1. Challenge is a proceeding initiated on a complaint to the effect that one Ram Chandra Halder, the opposite party no. 2 herein, entered into an agreement with one Tapas Mukherjee, the petitioner herein, in respect with the properties corresponding to L.R. Dag No. 2108, 2109 and 2011 at Mouja Gorjee, Chanadannagar, Hooghly for selling those properties to others and to deposit sale proceedings in favour of the opposite party herein. Accordingly, two General Power of Attorneys were executed in favour of the petitioner herein being deed no. 235/13 & 236/13 dated 12.08.2013. But said Tapas Mukherjee, petitioner herein made misrepresentation and fraudulently incorporated the Dag Nos. 2101, 2103, 2104, 2015, 2016 & 2018 by making two forged documents and tried to sell those properties along with Dag Nos. 2108,2109 & 2011.
2. Said Ram Chandra Halder lodged the complaint before the Bhadreswar Police Station where a case was registered as Bhadreswar PS Case no. 392/13 dated 07.11.2013 under Sections 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). The case was investigated and ended with charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under the provisions mentioned hereinabove.
3. Petitioner filed instant revision application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) with a prayer for quashing the aforesaid charge sheet culminating to the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1330/2013, presently pending before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Chandannagar.
Argument Advanced:-
4. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Pradip Ray appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner never made any transaction in respect of properties in Dag Nos. 2101, 2103, 2104, 2015, 2016 & 2098.
5. It is further submitted that the only civil remedy available to the opposite party no. 2 was to revoke the power of attorneys. It is further added that opposite party no. 2 already revoked those power of attorneys.
6. In support of his contention, Mr. Ray has relied on the following cases :
Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673.
Naresh Kumar and another vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268.
7. By taking assistance of the above mentioned cases, Mr. Ray has highlighted certain ratios in order to swing the attention of this Court in his favour.
8. In Paramjeet Batra (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence, in such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
9. In Naresh Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court by mainly relying on the ratio of Paramjeet Batra (supra) has held that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment.
10. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the deed of Power of Attorney executed between petitioner and opposite party no. 2 on 12.08.2013 was only in respect of Dag Nos. 2108, 2109 & 2111 and no other Dag number, which was duly admitted and accepted by the petitioner. Mr. Chatterjee has further adduced a sworn affidavit before a First Class Magistrate dated 14.12.2013 annexed as ‘A’ wherein the petitioner has admitted and accepted that Dag Nos. other than 2108, 2109 & 2111 were added subsequent to the execution of the deed of Power of Attorney.
11. Mr. Chatterjee has further submitted that after execution of the aforementioned Power of Attorneys, the opposite party no. 2 subsequently came to know that several other properties pertaining to Dag Nos. 2101, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106 & 2098 have been included in the executed Power of Attorney, by tampering an already executed deed. Apprehending foul play, the opposite party no. 2 obtained a certified copy wherein it clearly showed
