The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of forgery and criminal conspiracy in the context of sale and purchase transactions, as well as the requirement for a prima facie case to be established.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is made to the Charge-sheet dated 03.10.2018 and Cognizance Order dated 09.10.2018, passed in Criminal Case No. 3044 of 2018, State vs. Anil David and Others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital (the case) and the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by respondent no. 2 (the informant). According to it, co-accused, Anil David and Johnson T. John, by claiming themselves owner, forged a resolution of Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (the trust) and sold the land pertaining to Widows’ Home, Nainital to the petitioners. The FIR records that the petitioners and co-accused were hand in glove in this act and they were always in the process of making the properties disputable, so that they could earn money illegally. Based on this FIR, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the co- accused Anil David and Johnson T. John, and the petitioners, which is basis of the case. In that charge- sheet cognizance has been taken, which is impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers; they had purchased the property on 10.10.2014, by virtue of a registered sale deed, and they had paid the consideration by way of demand drafts. Learned counsel raised the following points also in his submission:

(i) After purchase of the property, mutation has already been done in favour of the petitioners. The property has been recorded in their names.

(ii) The informant or any other person has not filed any case for cancellation of sale deed.

(iii) With regard to similar allegations, Special Investigation Team (the SIT) at Dehradun had investigated the matter and had found that, in fact, co-accused Anil David was the Director of the Trust even in the year 2017.

(iv) Petitioners are innocent and they did not commit any offence.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 to argue that mere sale and purchase does not make out a case of forgery. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the concept of false document and in Para 17 observed as hereunder:

“17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.”

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that the co-accused did forge resolution of the trust, which speaks of some applications, having been given by the petitioners, but there is no such application on record and, thereafter, allegedly the sale was done. He would also raise the following points in his submission:

(i) The consideration is shockingly disproportionate; the property worth Crores was sold for some lakhs only.

(ii) There has been no resolution of trust as such.

(iii) Part of the consideration has been shown to be given in cash, which doubts the transactions and creates a huge doubt that the petitioners, under a conspiracy, purchased the property, so that it may be grabbed.

(iv) The SIT was constituted for the instant transactions that gave its report on 30.03.2018 and held that the transactions were not done by the trust. The co-accused forged the documents and under a conspiracy with the petitioners executed the deeds. Reference has been made to the report of SIT,