IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha , CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent/State and Mr. Puneet Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“a. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Cr.R No. 09/2023, arising out of order dated 06.05.2023 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, in case No. unregistered/2023.

b. The Hon’ble Court further be pleased to quash the FIR of the Crime No. 88/2023 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, for the offence under Section 420 of IPC which is registered in the consequence of the order dated 06.05.2023, in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the petitioner is the nephew of respondent no. 2. There were four sons of Late Baijnath i.e., (1) Lalgovind, (2) Jaigovind, (3) Lalmohar and (4) Govind. Petitioner Munmun Singh is the biological son of Jaigovind. In his childhood, he was adopted by Lalgovind and Lalgovind is his adoptive father. The name of Lalgovind Singh is recorded as the father of the petitioner in all the school records and mark-sheets from class 5th onwards. Present respondent No.2-Chandrakanti Devi is wife of Govind Singh. The parties are having their ancestral property at village Pipradih, District Bhojpur-Ara, (Bihar). Lalgovind has died on 26.01.2018 and Lalmohar has also died since 30-40 years back. The adoptive father of the petitioner Lalgovind was in service of S.E.C.L, Vishrampur area. Since he was medically unit, he was being discharged from service on the condition that one of his dependent is to be provided job in the S.E.C.L. An application to this efect has also been moved by Lalgovind Singh on 09-02-2002 to the S.E.C.L. Considering the application of Lalgovind Singh, the petitioner is appointed on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1, S.E.C.L, Vishrampur area and the petitioner has joined his services at Bhatgaon area and is continuously discharging his duty as General Mazdoor Category 1 and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Foreman, Grade-III, in the year 2003. Since then the petitioner is working on that post with utmost sincerity and best of his capability. In the year 2018, when Lalgovind died, the dispute arose between the petitioner and his uncle Govind Singh with respect to the ancestral property of the parties. A civil suit is also filed on 04-07-2019 by Govind Singh before the Court of learned Sub-Judge Piro, District Bhojpur (Bihar) vide Civil Suit No. 91/2019, for partition of the suit property and permanent injunction. In order to give color the civil dispute into criminal dispute, the husband of the respondent No.2 namely Govind Singh @ Nandkishore Singh has made a complaint to the Police Station, Vishrampur, on 03-08-2019 with the efect that his brother Lalgovind Singh and his wife have died issueless and Jaigovind Singh and Govind Singh are being the son of Late Baijnath Singh, successor of the ancestral property of the family, Munmun Singh have fraudulently got entered his name in place of his father's name Jaigovind in his school records in order to get beneit in the property and thereby committed an offence and an inquiry is required in the matter. On the complaint of the husband of respondent No. 2, the matter was inquired by the Police and statement of Govind Singh and Munmun Singh were recorded and after inquiry, it was found by the Police that no any offence is committed by the present petitioner and all the documents are in its correct names. On 22-06-2020, the husband of the respondent No. 2 moved his complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, alleging the same facts which was alleged in the complaint dated 03-08-2019 and said that the petitioner