Order On Board

19.04.2022 Heard

1. The grievance of the petitioners are that one Rajkumar Bhure, S/o.

Late Madhukar Bhure has lodged a complaint at Police Station- Civil Lines on 02.11.2019 on the allegation that registered sale deed in respect of Khasra No.130/7 admeasuring 5.593 hectares and Khasra No.136 admeasuring 6.272 hectares were executed, which were in name of maternal grand-mother and father of the complainant. It was alleged that the sale is made by forged sale deed and the sale deed was not bearing signature of actual owner.

It was stated that the complainant became the owner of subject property by virtue of a WILL dated 06.01.1976 whereby the entire property was bestowed to the complainant, however, when the mutation proceedings were carried out, it was revealed that certain prior sale deed exists in respect of said property. Therefore, a report was made to the police and the signature which was available of Saytra Bai, the owner was compared with that of the signature/thumb impression which was scribed in earlier sale deed. Likewise the signature/thumb impression of WILL of father of complainant was also compared with the signature of subsequent sale deed. The opinion of handwriting expert revealed that both the signature on sale deed are different from the owners, whose signature/ thumb impression were available in documents existing prior to sale deed. Therefore, the offence was registered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only on presumption, the FIR has been registered. She would submit that in order to ascertain whether the original sale deed bears the signature of the seller Saytra Bai, other authenticated documents should have been placed and expert opinion cannot be a conclusive proof. She would further submit that after a period of more than 30 years, this report has been made and the power of attorney which was given to the petitioner No.2 was in respect of the land, which was lawfully acquired wherein the petitioner No.3 & 4 were only the witnesses. She further submits under the circumstances, unless the sale deed which is alleged to be wrong is set aside, the presumption of correctness would follow and no criminality can be attached.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the argument and he submits that the charge sheet has already been filed.

4. Perused the FIR and the charge sheet. The FIR purports that the property bearing Khasra No.136 and 130/7 was in name of Saytra Bai, the grand-mother of the complainant Rajkumar Bhure and father Madhukar Rao Bhure. The allegations were leveled that on the basis of the forged documents, the petitioners have claimed their proprietary right over the subject property. It further purports that both the land i.e. (i) which was recorded in name of Saytra Bai and (ii) recorded in name of Madhukar Rao Bhure, forged sale deeds were alleged to have been executed and subsequently a power of attorney was executed to avail the proceeds of crime. Perusal of charge sheet shows it contains the opinion of the fingerprint expert.

5. Prima facie reading of the opinion of handwriting expert would show that it is opined that the thumb impression over the alleged sale deed of 1972-74 of Saytra Bai do not match with the thumb impression of Saytra Bai which was available in the earlier registered documents and other documents. Likewise, the signature of Madhukar Rao, the alleged seller was also verified from other earlier registered documents also differs with the alleged forged sale deed. Therefore, prima facie on consideration of the police report and the documents attached therein prima facie makes out a case of sale by false personification. At this stage, the defence of the petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused cannot be considered and acceptance of contention of the petitioners would amount to allow to accept the defence before the charges are framed resulting into acquittal. Prima facie the Court has to see whether there is ground to presume th