Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Lal Deo Sah & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Cri. Pet. No. 02 (AP) of 2015
Decided On : 01-10-2015
For the Petitioners: K.K. Mahanta.
For the Respondents: K. Tado, K. Tama.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 and 397(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420/34 - Quashing of complaint - Criminal offence - civil litigation - Respective share of land - Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by petitioners challenging impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Complaint Case No. whereby cognisance has been taken against petitioners under Sections 420/34 IPC as well as for quashing complaint case No. pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate - Contentions made by petitioners are that they never involved in any criminal offence and at present a complaint case was filed against them is totally false and fabricated one on ground with a view to harass petitioners and to make undue gain for a plot of land purchase by petitioners and in respect of which, civil litigation are pending between parties - It has been stated that by criminal proceeding respondent/complainant has abused process of the court - Narrating fact beyond case, it has been submitted Bihar had three sons, and after death, his legal heirs divided total ancestral land amongst themselves and mutated their names against their respective share of land - Complainants father has purchased of land - Petitioner No. 1 along with his family member, on other hand, purchased 7 Kathas 5 Dhur land vide registered Sale deed – Court have heard Senior Counsel for petitioners - Also heard, Public Prosecutor for State of Arunachal Pradesh/respondent No. 1 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Complainant/respondent No. 2 – Held, Complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce legal ingredients of offence alleged - If necessary factual foundation is laid in complaint - Merely on ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, proceedings should not be quashed - Quashing of complaint is warranted only where complaint is so bereft of even basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out offence - Having regard to above principles, if we examine complaint so filed in given case, it will reveal that no such of circumstances as has been mentioned above - Complaint has to be examined as a whole but without examining merits - Allegations, neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous/analysis of material or assessment of reliability or genuineness of allegations in complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint - Now in instance case, petitioners have challenged genuineness of documents like money receipt, ILP and authenticity of statement of complainant/respondent and his witnesses but same can be tested only in course of trial not by way of raising allegations - Quashing of complaint is warranted only where complaint is so bereft of reason, basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out offence - After going through LCR, it is also found court has duly examined complainant and his witnesses, document, in support of case, a prima facie criminal offence and cognisance, has been taken under Section 420 IPC - Considering entire facts of present case – Court opinion matter in hand is not one of those extreme cases where criminal prosecution can be quashed by court at very threshold - Defence case is to be considered at latter stage for which they will get ample opportunity to raise all issues– Court find no reason to interfere with criminal proceeding and accordingly - Petition stands rejected and dismissed
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia in Complaint Case No. 41/2014 whereby cognisance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 420/34 IPC as well as for quashing the complaint case No. 41/2014 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
2. The contentions made by the petitioners are that they never involved in any criminal offence and at present a complaint case was filed against them is totally false and fabricated one on the ground with a view to harass the petitioners and to make undue gain for a plot of land purchase by the petitioners and in respect of which, civil litigation are pending between the parties.
3. It has been stated that by the criminal proceeding the respondent/complainant has abused the process of the court. Narrating the fact beyond the case, it has been submitted that one Late Bhagan Prasad Choudhury of Bora Chakia, Purbi Champaran, Bihar had three sons, namely, Krishna Prasad Choudhury, Murari Lal Choudhury and Ram Avatar Choudhury and after the death of Bhagan Prasad Choudhury, his legal heirs divided the total ancestral land amongst themselves and mutated their names against their respective share of land. The Complainant's father Late Ram Udar Pandey has purchased 10 kathas 3 Dhur of land on 10.04.2006 from Late Krishna Prasad Choudhury. The petitioner No. 1 along with his family member, on the other hand, purchased 7 Kathas 5 Dhur land vide registered Sale deed dated 03.02.2009, which has been registered on 07.02.2009 from Diraj Kumar Choudhury, the son of Late Murari Lai Choudhury.
4. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh/respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/respondent No. 2.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that during his life time, the father of the complainant Ram Udar Pandey along with his mother filed a preemption case being Pre-Emption Case No. 3/09-10 before the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chakia, East Champaran misrepresenting the fact that they are Raiyat of redemption claimed land and that his land is situated in the northern boundary of the land in question, which is situated in the southern side of the land of the petitioners. Subsequently, the mother and father of the complainant deposited the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed before the said Court and vide order dated 13.12.2010, the Court allowed preemption suit in favour of the father and mother of the complainant. Thereafter, it was stated that the northern boundary of the land mentioned in the sale deed of the petitioners is wrong.
6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 13.12.2010 in Pre-emption Case No.3/09-10, the petitioners filed an appeal being Preemption Appeal No. 12/2010-11 before the said Court challenging the aforesaid order. In the said appeal, complainant has been arrayed as party respondent. By the order dated 13.12.2010, the Court of Collector, Chakia, East Champaran, Bihar, passed the stay order in the said pre-emption Case No. 3/09-10. The Pre-emption Appeal was admitted on 05.01.2011 and is still pending before the said Court for final disposal.
7. The learned senior counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the Preemption Appeal in the Court of Collector, Chakia, East Champaran, Bihar, the respondent/complainant suddenly filed a Complaint Case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 41/2014, against the petitioners alleging inter alia that petitioners requested to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10
