The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes over property ownership and alleged fabrication of documents may be subject to civil proceedings and may not necessarily warrant criminal charges under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mudgal, J.

With the consent of parties, the matter is being finally heard and the record perused.

1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 92/2011, whereby, the non-applicants No. 2 to 4/respondents No. 2 to 4 have been discharged from the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

2. The facts, in brief are that a criminal complaint was filed by petitioner-Hetram S/o Kallu Kushwah alleging that he was in possession of house No. 159 situated in ward No. 29, Peepal Wala Kua Shashipura, Mansha Kachi- Shivpuri, which was obtained by him after the death of his father, who had died on 21.02.1998, thereafter, tax of Rs. 1500/- was paid by him on 07.04.2004. However, the 2 non-applicant No. 2- Vijay Singh in connivance with Municipal Corporation, got his name mutated pertaining to a patore and a room in his name. The accused Vijay Singh got his name entered in the record of Municipal Corporation Shivpuri by fabricating a will and showing himself to be adopted son of deceased Balabai and managed to receive the possession of the disputed patore and room which was recorded in the name of father of the complainant and which the respondent no.2 Vijay Singh got mutated in his name illegally and malafidely. Even NOC was obtained from the Municipal Corporation in the name of Vijay Singh pertaining to house No. 1528 measuring 690 sq.ft. Situated in ward No. 29 on 22.11.2006, inspite of the fact that the name of Balabai was not existing in municipal corporation record, thereafter, Vijay Singh respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of Dilkhan-respondent No. 3 inspite of the fact that the petitioner and his family members were residing in the same, since the life time of his father. All the accused fabricated forged documents in connivance with each other and a sale deed was executed on 16.3.2007 pertaining to 1000 sq.ft. by Vijay Singh in the favour of Dilkhan Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court as well as revisional court have 3 committed error in dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant as the disputed property which was sold by the respondent No. 2 Vijay Singh to the respondent No. 3 Dilkhan Singh was of the ownership of the petitioner as he succeeded the said property from his father as his legal heirs just because the respondent No. 2 got his name mutated on the basis of fake and forged will alleged to be executed by Bala Bai mother of the petitioner in his favour, he does not acquire any title to the property, therefore, the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is to be treated as fake and forged. Hence, cognizance against the respondents No. 2 & 3 ought to have been taken by the trial court. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting-aside both the orders as stated earlier and the trial court be directed for taking cognizance against the respondents No. 2 & 3 for the offences stated in the complaint.

4. Counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 opposing the submissions have submitted that it is a dispute of civil nature. Neither the fake and forged documents was prepared by the respondent No. 2 nor the alleged document was executed in the name of petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No. 3. If the respondent 4 No. 2 Vijay Singh has no title or interest in the property, the petitioner may file civil suit for challenging the legality and validity of the sale deed. Nevertheless, no offence is made out in this case as a result the orders passed by both the learned courts below are just and appropriate. Hence, no interference is required in them.

5. Arguments were considered and record was perused.

6. On perusal of it, it is evident that Badami Lal Shar