IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2730 of 2022 With CRAN 2 of 2023 CRAN 6 of 2025 Smt. Kamala Devi Goyal Vs.

The State of West Bengal & anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratim Priya Das Gupta Mr. Aasish Choudhury Ms. Meera Agarwal For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya For the State : Mr. R.D. Nandy Ld. APP Mr. Subham Kanti Bhakat Heard on : 02.05.2025 Judgment on : 10.06.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This instant prayer for quashing of proceeding relates to GR Case no. 830 of 2020, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 209 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 under section 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal code (IPC), presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.

2. The allegations as set out in the first information report is that the opposite party no. 2/FIR maker purchased a property being premises no. 54-A Kali Krishna Tagore Street Kolkata-700007 in the year 2011, wherein the petitioner herein is a tenant of a shop room situated at the ground floor allegedly since 1975 -76. The FIR maker after purchasing the said property filed ejectment suit being 130 of 2017 with a prayer for evicting the petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of opposite party no.2 herein/FIR maker on 28.02.2018. Later on the opposite party no. 2 initiated execution proceeding being no. 72 of 2018 and in execution of the said decree, vacant khas possession of the said tenanted shop room was handed over to the opposite party no. 2 in presence of police. However, on 21.12.2018 the said opposite party no. 2 came to know that the petitioner along with other accused persons unlawfully trespassed into the said shop room and had taken forceful possession of the same. On enquiry the opposite party no.2 came to know that the petitioner along with other accused persons by forging the signature of opposite party no.2 have procured a letter which they have submitted before Jorabagan police station stating that both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, whereby the opposite party no.2 herein has agreed and has handed over the possession of the said shop in favour of the petitioner on stipulated terms. The FIR maker’s specific case is that he neither entered into any kind of mutual settlement with the accused persons nor have signed any such letter to such effect. The complainant immediately on 22.12.2018 wrote a letter to accused no.4 protesting such forgery. Therefore, the petitioner along with the other accused persons are guilty of forging the signature of the FIR maker and also guilty of committing offence for preparing illegal letter dated

20.12.2018, by which they have taken illegal possession of the shop room.

3. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding Mr. Das Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on perusal of the charge sheet it is evident that there is no reflection as to any report being obtained from an expert to substantiate the charge of forgery and in absence of such report offences under section 467/468/471 IPC is not maintainable. Under the provisions of 463 IPC, which defines forgery makes it clear that only one who makes false document can be held liable for offence of forgery. Therefore, the person who is not the maker of false document in question cannot be said to have committed forgery and in this context he relied upon the Judgement of Sheila Sebastian Vs. Jawaharaj and another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581.

4. Petitioner’s further contention is that it is not in dispute that opposite party no.2 after executing decree passed in Title Execution 72 of 2018 obtained possession of the shop room but thereafter through intervention of Posta Bazar Merchants’ Association, the opposite party no. 2/ landlord entered into an amicable settlement wherein the opposite party no. 2 agreed to hand over possession to