IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that mere execution of a sale deed does not constitute forgery unless it is proven that the document was made with fraudulent intent to mislead, while a prima facie case under Section 82 of the Registration Act was established.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in detail. Perused the available records.

3. In the instant case, investigation started when the complainant lodged complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and under Section 82 of the Registration Act.

4. The prayer herein is to quash the complaint. At the same time, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioners that acting on the complaint, the learned Magistrate proceeded further and took cognizance of the matter and issued summons by another separate order and the said order is not produced. The precise allegation of the prosecution is that the accused herein created false documents viz., 1994/2016, 87/2020, 88/2020, 89/2020 and 90 of 2020 showing public way and public well as private properties, with a view to avoid the use of the same by the public. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

5. While challenging the complaint, on the submission that none of the offences prima facie made out, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed decision of the Apex Court in Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495, referring paragraph Nos.5 and 27 to contend that none of the offences made out, prima facie. The facts dealt in the decision is stated in paragraph No.5 which reads as under:

“5. On or about 22.08.1997, a sale deed was executed by Appellants 1 and 2 in favour of Appellants 3 and 4. On 24.08.2005, a suit was filed by Respondent 2 and others for cancelling the aforesaid deed of sale dated 22.08.1997, which was registered as Civil Suit No.382/2005. The said suit is still pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad. In the said suit, however, it was averred that Solhu had four sons whereas in Suit No.135/1982, it was stated that solhu had five sons. The appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of the Deputy District Magistrate (First Class), Ghaziabad praying for dismissal of Suit No.135 of 1982. An application for impleadment was also filed by the appellants in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.17667 of 1985.”

6. In paragraph No.27, the Apex Court observed as under:

“27. Mr. Das submits that a wrong committed on the part of a person may be a civil wrong or a criminal wrong although an act of omission or commission on the part of a person may give rise to both civil action and criminal action. A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.”

7. Another decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 also has been placed with reference to a case where the facts dealt in paragraph No.2 as under:

“2. The second respondent herein filed a complaint against Appellants 1 to 3 (Accused 1 to 3) and two others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, alleging that he was the owner of Katha No. 715, Khasra Nos. 1971 and 1973 admeasuring 1 bigha, 5 kathas and 18 dhurs; that the first accused who had no connection with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executed two registered