Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushil Kumar Palo, J.
Prabhatchand Samaiya v. Smt. Rajendra Kour
Criminal Revision No. 88 of 2017 (Jabalpur);
against order dated 26.12.2016 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 57/2015. Decided on 3.8.2017.
Sankalp Kochar for applicant ; J.K. Verma for respondents
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420 and 467 -- offence under -- charge framed
-- revision -- applicant purchased 50×100=5000 sq.ft. land of complainant -- but in revenue record shown as 10000 sq.ft. -- which is not correct -- subsequently petitioner sold land 23×108=2370 sq.ft. -- length of 108 ft. shown in second sale deed gives clear picture that excess land sold by petitioner to others -- length of 114ft. and 118ft. indicates excess land sold prima facie -- at this stage it is not necessary to make a roving enquiry -- prima facie evidence is available on record -- Court is justified in framing of charge -- trial Court is within his right to frame charges -- Co-ordinate Bench of this Court already given finding -- this Court does not subscribe to another view -- petition dismissed.
Held : The length of 108 ft. shown in the second sale deed gives a clear picture that excess land have been sold by the petitioner to Rishabh Jain and others. The length of 114 ft. and 118 ft. indicates excess land has been sold prima facie.
At the stage of framing of charge, prima facie case is to be seen. At this stage, it is not necessary to make a roving inquiry. If the prima facie evidence is available on record, the Court is justified in framing of charge, therefore, at this stage there is grave suspicion and hence, the trial Court is within his right to frame charges. 2010(2) JLJ 271, AIR 2008 SC 247, AIR 1977 SC 1489, (2005)3 SCC 670 and (2008)8 SCC 673 distinguished. (2000)2 SCC 57 followed.
[Paras 14 & 15
naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420 rFkk 467 && mica/kks ds v/khu vijk/k && vkjksi fojfpr && iqujh{k.k && vkosnd us ifjoknh dh 50x100=5000 oxZ QhV Hkwfe Ø; dh &ijarq jkTkLo vfHkys[k esa 10000 oxZ QhV nf'kZRk && tks Bhd ugha & rRi'pkr ;kph us 23x108=2370 oxZQhV foØ; dh && nwljs foØ; foys[k esa nf'kZRk 108 QhV yEckbZ Li"V fp= izLrqr djrh gS fd ;kph us vfrfjDr Hkwfe foØ; vU; dks foØ; dh & 114 QhV rFkk 118 QhV dh yackbZ fufnZ"V djrh gS fd izFken`"V~;k vfrfjDr Hkwfe foØ; dh xbZ && bl Lrj ij ljljh tkWp djkuk vko';d ugha && vfHkys[k ij izFken`"V;k lk{; miyC/k && U;k;ky; vkjksi fojfpr djus esa U;k;kuqer gS && fopkj.k U;k;ky; vkjksi fojfpr djus esa vius vf/kdkj ds Hkhrj gS && bl U;k;ky; dh led{k U;k;ihB igys gh fu"d"kZ ns pqdh && ;g U;k;ky; vU; n`f"Vdks.k dks leZFku ugh djrh && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % 108 QhV dh yEckbZ nwljs foØ; foys[k esa Li"V fp= izLrqr djrh gS fd ;kph _"kHk tSu rFkk vU; dks vfrfjDr Hkwfe foØ; dh xbZA 114 QhV rFkk 118 QhV dh yackbZ fufnZ"V djrh gS fd izFken`"V~;k vfrfjDr Hkwfe foØ; dh xbZ gSA
vkjksi fojfpr djus ds Lrj ij izFken`"V~;k ekeyk ns[kk tkuk gSA bl Lrj ij ljljh tkWp dh tkuk vko';d ugah gSA ;fn vfHkys[k ij izFken`"V;k lk{; miyC/k gS U;k;ky; vkjksi fojfpr djus es U;k;kuqer gS blfy, bl Lrj ij xaHkhj lansg gS rFkk blfy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; vkjksi fojfpr djus ds fy, vius vf/kdkj ds Hkhrj gSA 2010¼2½ ts ,y ts 271] , vkb vkj 2008 ,l lh 247] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1489] ¼2005½ 3 ,l lh lh 670 rFkk ¼2008½ 8 ,l lh lh 673 izHksfnrA ¼2002½ 2 ,l lh lh 57 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the accused/applicant under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC, assailing the order dated 26.12.2016, passed by 3rd A.S.J, Sagar, in S.T. No. 57/2015, wherein charges have been framed against the applicant/accused for offence under sections 420, and 467 of IPC.
2. The respondent/complainant's case in brief is that the respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicant and filed a criminal complaint case before the JMFC, Sagar alleging that vide sale deed dated 30.5.1974 the complainant sold a piece of land ad-measuring 50x100 = 5000 sq. ft. situated at Khasra No.196/2, Patwari Halka No.17 (New Patwari Halka No.71) at village Rajakhedi, District Sagar to the petitioner. This land is adjacent to the land of Sheel Sahgal in the north-south area. Other land of the seller/complainant was existed beside the land sold. The accused/applicant manipulated and forged the documents. A part of the land he purchased was sold to other accused persons namely Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Rishabh, Suresh and Nandini on 24.7.1990. Part of the remaining land of the complainant has been sold by the petitioner/accused to respondents No. 2 and 3. By the second sale deed made in favour of respondents Ajay Kumar, Rishabh Kumar, Suresh Kumar the petitioner sold part of land belonged to the complainant. Therefore, complaint has been filed for offence under sections 420 , 467 and 471 of the IPC read with section 34 of IPC. On this complaint the learned JMFC took cognizance for offences mentioned above by order dated 10.10.2014.
3. This order of taking cognizance under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC was challenged by the applicant, in Criminal Revision No. 418/2015. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.4.2016 decided the same and dismissed the revision. Subsequent thereto, the case was committed to session Court. It is then registered as S.T. No.57/2015, wherein the learned 3rd ASJ framed charges under sections 420 and 467 of IPC against the applicant/accused by the impugned order dated 26.12.2016.
4. The applicant has claimed that the complaint is gross abuse of process of law and no criminal offence has been committed. By two sale deeds dated 24.7.1990 land area admeasuring 2370 sq.ft. each out of the entire area of 5000 sq.ft., which is admittedly the ownership and possession of the accused/applicant was sold. The map appended to the sale deeds leaves no room of doubt that only 2370 sq.ft. each has been sold by the applicant to third parties. The entire allegation leveled by the complainant is false. After twenty four years of executing the sale deed, the complainant has“lodged this report. In order dated 19.2.2014 the Commissioner, Sagar has categorically stated that remedy available to the complainant is to file a civil suit and get the issue adjudicated as regarding the area under her ownership. In the report dated 20.8.2014 called by learned JMFC, Sagar, police has mentioned it categorically, that no case of any forgery or cheating is culled out as per the allegations. Though the land purchased by the applicant/accused is 5000 sq.ft. But in the revenue record the land was shown to be of area of land mutated in the name of the applicant is 10000 sq.ft. only.
5. The applicant filed application before the learned trial Court but the same was dismissed in a mechanical and cavalier manner and charges have been framed. The applicant, therefore, prays that the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by 3rd ASJ, Sagar be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions and submitted that the order dated 18.4.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has discussed all the issues now raised and held that the matter relates to a civil dispute. However, it contends elements of criminal offences as well. No ground has been made out for interfering with the order dated 10.10.2014, wherein cognizance has been taken and process against the accused/applicant has been issued.
7. Co
