Anoop Singh And Another vs Mus. Ram Bai Singh

Both Applicants have filed this criminal revision under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No.83/2014 whereby learned trial Court along with other co-accused framed the charges against both applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and 474 Part-II of the I.P.C..

Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that the agricultural land of Survey No.1778, area 0.199 hectare, Survey No. 1779, area 0.063 hectare, Survey No. 1780/2, area 2.895 hectare, Survey No. 1781, area 0.199 hectare, Survey No. 1782, area 0.167 hectare, Survey No. 1803/2, area 0.240 hectare, total area 3.763 hectare situated in Village Piparikala purchased by the Sabharaj Singh. The previous owner of the land was Brajbhan Singh, Sabharaj Singh could not mutated his name in place of Brajbhan Singh and applied for mutation. During mutation proceeding, Sabharaj Singh died, then respondent Mrs. Ram Bai Singh who is wife of Sabharaj Singh continued the proceedings and ultimately her name got mutated in the revenue records since then she remained in possession of the land purchased by her husband but both applicants along with other co-accused conspired to delete the name of respondent Mrs. Ram Bai Singh from the revenue records and prepared the forged documents of sale agreement. On the basis of the sale agreement, mutation proceeding was started, with the convenience of revenue department got succeeded in the deletion the name of Ram Bai Singh and entered the name of Talendra Pratap Singh. But respondent Ram Bai was in possession. When this fact came in knowledge of her, she immediately filed a civil suit against Talendra Pratap Singh for declaration of title and issuance of permanent injunction and also filed a criminal complaint against the suspected persons including both the applicants.

Learned Court of JMFC after inquiring into the matter and material available on record got registered the criminal complaint against each of the applicants and found that the offence punishable under Sections 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and 474 Part-II of the IPC are triable by the Sessions Court and committed the complaint to the Sessions Court. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna started the proceedings of trial. After hearing both the parties, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna vide impugned order dated 15.12.2015 framed the charges against both the applicants.

The applicants being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 filed this criminal revision on the ground that no ingredients of any criminal offence is made out against the applicants. Learned trial Court wrongly framed the charges against the applicants. Respondent Ram Bai Singh filed a civil suit against Talendra Pratap Singh for the same dispute which is pending before the commital Court. The Civil Court would decide the documents of Kacchi Bechi teep (sale agreement written on plain paper), no ingredients of any criminal act has been made out against the applicants. Unnecessarily respondent filed this criminal complaint for harassing the applicants. It is simply an abuse of process of law. He placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 and prays to set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 and discharge both the applicants from the charges.

Heard learned counsel and perused the documents filed along with this petition. Record of the trial Court i.e. S.T. No. 83/2014 has been received. After perusal of the record of the trial Court, it emerges out that after trial, the case has been fixed for evidence of complainant witnesses.

Perused the documents of agreement to sale written on plain paper, which is unregistered documents and on the basis of unregistered documents, neither title nor right has been transferred to anyone and it seems undisputed that the possession remains with Ram Bai. No doubt, on these documents, the name of Talendra Pratap Singh could not be mutated in place of name of Ram Bai, but it prima facie seems that with the convenience of all accused of Criminal Case No. 83/2014, the name of Ram Bai was deleted from the revenue records and name of Talendra Pratap Singh has been recorded in the revenue records. It is purely criminal act reflected from perusal of the whole documents.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Inder Mohan Goswami and Another (supra) clearly opined that if there is any ingredient of cheating found and there is a purely civil suit between the parties, no criminal intention of the person is found to reflect any ingredient of the offence, then criminal proceedings can be quashed.

But in this pending case, on the basis of foregoing discussion and after perusal of the documents filed in S.T. No.83/2014, this Court is of the view that there is a prima facie material available against both the applicants to proceed with the trial and in this premises, this Court has not found fit to discharge the applicants of the charges.

Hence, this criminal revision filed against the charge is deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.