Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 803

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Jahanara Rahman @ Jahanara Rohman, W/o. Late Dr. Ahmed Hadiur Rahman – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The Learned PP, Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No.997 Of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Dutta.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Parashar, Addl.P.P., Mr. S.M. Abdullah P., Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between civil and criminal disputes, the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the requirement for a reasonable and indubitable material to quash a proceeding.

Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - Cr.P.C. - 420/468/506/120B - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the exercise of inherent power to quash an FIR. It highlighted the need for a civil remedy in cases with a criminal texture and emphasized the requirement for a reasonable and indubitable material to quash a proceeding. The court also clarified the distinction between civil and criminal disputes and the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed without impeding it.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420/468/506/120B of IPC, related to a property dispute and allegations of forgery and cheating. The dispute arose from the inheritance of a property left behind by the deceased Dr. Rahman, with the accused claiming to be his legally married wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, with a criminal texture given to it. It emphasized that the legality and validity of the marriage could be determined in a civil proceeding and allowing the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the marriage certificate, the inheritance of the property, and the allegations of forgery and cheating. The court also addressed the abuse of process of the court and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, the requirement for a reasonable and indubitable material to quash a proceeding, and the need to allow the investigation to proceed without impeding it.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the criminal proceeding arising from the FIR was set aside and quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. M. Abdullah P., learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR dated 06.02.2023 registered as Titabar P.S. Case No. 24/2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 52/2023 under Sections 420/468/506/120B of IPC.

3. The informant filed a petition in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Titabar, which was registered as C.R. Case No. 03/2023. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Titabar under its order dated 01.02.2023 forwarded the complaint along with documents annexed thereto to the jurisdictional Police Station with a direction to investigate into the matter by registering a police case and to submit Final Form. Accordingly, Titabar P.S. Case No. 24/2023 under Sections 420/468/506/120(B) of IPC was registered.

4. The gist of the dispute as reflected from the complaint so made, are to the following effect:-

I. The informant is the legal heir of one Late Dr. Ahmed Hadiur Rahman, who expired on 09.08.2021.

II. Said deceased Dr. Rahman was the owner and recorded pattadar of a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1078 of P.P. No. 27 along with a building standing thereon situated at Titabar Town.

III. On the demise of said Dr. Ahmed, the informant and other legal heirs have inherited the aforesaid property and accordingly, they applied for Next of Kin (NOK) certificate before the SDO, and accordingly, NOK certificate was issued.

IV. However, on an objection filed by the petitioner/accused against issuance of such NOK Certificate in favour of the informant and other legal heirs of the deceased, the Sub Divisional Officer, revoked the said certificate by an order dated 06.08.2022, after hearing the parties and held that as the marriage between the deceased and the accused/objector is disputed, till such dispute is resolved, the matter shall be kept in abeyance.

V. The further allegation made is that the accused has criminally transferred the property unto herself in exclusion of the legal heirs. It is also contended that the accused is not a legally married wife of Late Dr. Rahman and on the other hand, she is the mistress of the deceased.

VI. According to the informant, through an RTI report dated 01.02.2022, the informant could learn that the marriage certificate on the basis of which the accused/petitioner claims herself to be the married wife of the deceased Late Dr. Rahman, is a fake certificate and the same does not bear the signature of the parties i.e. accused and the deceased.

VII. It was an allegation that the accused No. 1 on the basis of the forged documents (marriage certificate) and in connivance with other accused persons had illegally and without following due process of law, applied for mutation of her name in the record of rights and mutation was granted illegally by the competent authority under its order dated 07.11.2022. The other accused persons are the Kazi, who purportedly solemnised marriage, the Revenue Circle Officer, who passed the order dtd.7.11.2022 and 29.12.2022.

5. It is an admitted fact that the complaint was filed before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Titabor on, 01.02.2023 and on the same date, i.e. on 01.02.2023, the informant also filed a suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jorhat which is registered as Title Suit No.04/2023. The pleadings made in the aforesaid Title Suit and the statements made in the complaint are almost similar and replica.

6. The relief sought for in the Title Suit are quoted herein below:-

(i) A decree declaring the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

(ii) Decree be passed for eviction of the defendant from the suit property;

(iii) Decree declaring that the Defendant has no legal sta