Unauthorized representation and false declaration in lease execution affect ownership rights and may constitute offenses under IPC.

1. This criminal revision under S.397 read with S.401 of Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2012 passed by Tenth ASJ Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.180 of 2012 by which, the respondents were discharged from offences under S.420, S.467 and S.468 of IPC and only charge under S.423 of IPC was framed and since the offence under S.423 of IPC is not triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, the case was sent back to the Committal Court for trial.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that the respondents had also filed a petition under S.482 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 14.5.2012 before this court which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.9392 of 2012. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the said case has already been dismissed in default by this court vide order dated 9.12.2016.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that a complaint for offence under S.418, S.420, S.423, S.467, S.468 and S.120B of IPC was filed by the complainant alleging that land bearing Survey No.205 situated in village Maharajpura Ramanna District Gwalior was purchased by the applicant jointly along with other co - owners by registered sale deed dated 27.1.1999. It was alleged that the respondent no.1 by projecting himself to be representative of the owners executed a lease deed in favour of M.P. Education Society run by the respondents. It was further stated that in fact, no authorization was given in favour of the respondent no.1 and declaration made by respondent no.1 in the lease deed is false per - se.

4. The Magistrate after recording statements of the witnesses by order dated 4.2.2012 took cognizance of the offence against respondents for offence under S.420, S.467, S.468 and S.120B of IPC.

5. As the offences were triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, the case was committed. After committal, the Court of Sessions discharged the respondents for offence under S.420, S.467 and S.468 of IPC and framed charge under S.423 of IPC. Accordingly, the case has been sent back to the Committal Court as the offence under S.423 of IPC is not triable by the Sessions Court.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Sessions Court while appreciating the allegations made in the complaint did not consider the declaration made by respondent no.1 in proper perspective. A specific false declaration was made to the effect that the respondent no.1 has been authorised by co - owners to execute the lease deed on their behalf. Since neither any power of attorney was executed by the applicant or co - owners in favour of the respondent no.1 nor they had ever authorized respondent no.1 to execute the lease deed in respect of the property co - owned by them, therefore, it was submitted that the respondents have also committed offence under S.420, S.467 and S.468 of IPC and the Sessions Court has not taken note of this false declaration made in the lease deed properly. It is further submitted that the court below had merely mentioned that the false declaration made in the lease deed will not adversely affect the title of the complainant and lost sight of the fact that when the property is leased out to a third person, then, naturally, the complainant would be deprived of her right to enjoy the said property. It is further submitted that in view of this false declaration, it can safely be said that the respondent no.1 had prepared a forged document and had committed forgery for the purpose of cheating.

7. None appears for the respondent though served.

8. This Court has gone through the order dated 14.5.2012.

9. In the present case, the basic allegation against the respondent no.1 is that althoug