A person executing a sale deed without ownership does not commit forgery or fraud; allegations did not establish a prima facie case under the IPC, reflecting a civil dispute.

JUDGMENT

Date : 23-01-2025

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 whereby Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Munger, has taken cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioners of the offences punishable under Section s 323 , 420, 467, 468 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Complaint No. 687 of 2015 titled Pramendra Bhushan Vrs. Surendra Kumar and Others.

2. The Criminal Complaint was filed by one Pramendra Bhushan against the petitioners and other three co- accused alleging that house constructed on 5 katthas of land situated in Mauza Dalhatta Bazar, bearing Tauzi No. 1338, Ward No. 4, Holding No. 571 (new), 69 (old) by a registered sale deed on 22.08.1957. It is further alleged that 01 kattha of the same land was again sold by the petitioner Surendra Kumar in favour of co-accused Smt. Shashi Devi and Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma on 12.06.2015 and, thereafter, the purchasers Smt. Shashi Devi and Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma came to the house of the Complainant and started asking for possession of the same.

3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as per the allegation, no case is made out against the petitioners or any other accused whatsoever because there is no allegation that the petitioners or any accused has made any misrepresentation to the Complainant or induced him to part with any property, nor is any allegation that any document is forged and fabricated. As per the allegation, the sale deed is genuine and not forged, though, it is alleged that the petitioner Surendra Kumar has executed the sale deed in question without any title in the property, because he had already sold the same property to the Complainant in 1957.

5. However, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 defend the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the petitioner Surendra Kumar had already sold the land in question to the Complainant in 1957, and, thereafter, he has no longer any title in the same. But despite such lack of title and interest in the property, he has again executed the sale deed on 12.06.2015 in favour of Smt. Shashi Devi and Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma and hence, he has committed forgery and cheating against the Complainant/O.P. No.2 herein.

7. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions of the parties, it would be pertinent to see the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Here it would be profitable to refer to Amit Sinha Vs. State of Bihar , (2024 SCC online Pat 6330) and Harihar Sah And Others vs. State of Bihar and Anr. , (2023 SCC OnLine Pat 9582), wherein this Court, after referring to relevant statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents, has held that for taking cognizance of any offence and issuing summons to any accused in a complaint case, there must be a prima facie offence made out on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the statements made by the complainant and his witnesses during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC. However, such allegation or the statements should not be patently absurd and inherently improbable to a prudent mind.