Chandrabali Thakur S/o Late Sadhu Sharan Thakur vs The State of Bihar

Heard Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Dr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr.

Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated

23.05.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Samastipur by which summon has been issued against the

petitioner after finding a prima facie case to be made out under

Sections 417, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the complainant-opposite party no.2,

the petitioner negotiated to sale a piece of plot admeasuring 15

dhoors to her husband for a consideration of Rs.8.25 lacs. Her

husband paid Rs.8.25 lacs by cash and cheque to the petitioner and,

accordingly, a sale deed was drafted over which the impression of

fingers of the complainant and her husband was taken by the co-

accused Ashok Kumar Mishra on 08.06.2012. He also took their

photographs and submitted the deed before the Registrar,

Samastipur for registration. However, on the date of execution of

the sale deed, the petitioner did not turn up on some false pretext,

whereafter, the Registrar appointed co-accused Jai Shankar Sharan

as Commissioner to visit the house of the petitioner in order to

examine him and get the sale deed executed. The complainant has

alleged that on 20.06.2012 when a copy of the sale deed executed

on 08.06.2012 was obtained, she came to know that the description

of the land was changed by making cutting and interpolation in the

sale deed. She also alleged that the petitioner in collusion with the

deed-writer and the Commissioner appointed by the Registrar had

made interpolations in the sale deed even without the knowledge of

the purchaser.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

an out and out a civil dispute has been given a colour of criminal

case with ulterior motive. He submitted that the complainant

intends to dispossess the petitioner from other piece of plot which is

in his name by using arm twisting tactics. He submitted that the

complainant has already filed Title Suit No. 273 of 2012 in the

court of Sub-Judge-I Samastipur in respect of the claim made in the

present complaint which is still pending. He contended that there is

interpolation in the sale deed. As a matter of fact, there were some

typographical errors, which were corrected within full knowledge of

the complainant -opposite party no.2 and her husband and once the

sale deed was presented before the Registrar, no cutting or

interpolation was made.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

opposite party no.2 submitted that it is a gross case of cheating and,

hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the

offences. He submitted that though the husband of the complainant

had paid money for a different plot, the accused petitioner

transferred another plot by making cutting and interpolation over

the sale deed behind the back of the complainant and her husband.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

carefully perused the record.

I am of the opinion that the dispute is purely of

civil nature. It is an admitted case of the complainant that when the

sale deed was presented before the Registrar, the accused-petitioner

had not visited the Registration Office. A Commission was

appointed by the Registrar to visit the house of the petitioner and

his in his presence, his signatures were taken over the sale deed

after which, the deed got executed. It is not the case of the

complainant that the land transferred through the deed does not

belong to the petitioner rather the case of the complainant is that he

had paid the amount for a different plot. In case a typographical

error in the sale deed was corrected before presentation of the

document and the same was presented subsequently before the

Registrar and the Registrar after examining the document and

appointing a Commission in order to examine the executant allowed

the registration of the sale deed, it would not be a case of cheating

or forgery. Moreover, the complainant has already filed a title suit

in this regard where the disputed question of fact may be decided on

the basis of oral and documentary evidence, which may be led on

behalf of the parties.

In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd.

& Others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], the Supreme Court cautioned about

a growing tendency to convert purely civil disputes into criminal

case. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that a court

proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of

harassment or persecution.

Keeping the above propositions in mind, I am of

the opinion that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue in the

present case would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated

23.05.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Samastipur and the entire proceedings arising out of a

Complaint Case No.2030 of 2012 are hereby quashed.

The application stands allowed.

It is needless to say that any observation made in

the present application should not affect the outcome of the title suit

pending before the Sub-Judge, Samastipur.