Govind Prasad Rajgarhia vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the State.

The petitioners seek quashing of order dated

18.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Bettiah in

Complaint Case No. 891(C) of 2011 thereby taking cognizance of

offence under Sections 465 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against

the petitioners.

The complainant of the case has filed present

complaint in capacity of power of attorney holder on behalf of

Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia. The fact stated in complaint petition is that

all four accused persons of the complaint including these three

petitioners as well as one Birendra Prasad Srivastava, after entering

into conspiracy, created forged document in order to grab the landed

property of Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia, as in Partition Suit No. 46 of

2009 filed by him, Govind Prasad Rajgarhia has filed a document

showing Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia, son of Mohan Lal Rajgarhia. That

document is a sale deed executed in favour of accused Ram Chandra

Ram and another sale deed in favour of one Sita Ram Sharma, but

these are ghost persons. Likewise, several documents have been filed

relating to the land in dispute sold in favour of some persons. It is also

alleged that accused Birendra Prasad Srivastava has created a forged

document of power of attorney executed by Bimal Kumar in his

favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

complaint was filed on 09.05.2011 and the complainant was examined

before the court on solemn affirmation on 26.06.2011 in which he

admits that Pramod Rajgarhia has compromised the case with the

accused persons. He also admits that he was holding power of

attorney with respect to the land of Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia situated

at Ujjain Tola, Bettiah and the witnesses examined at the enquiry

stage after filing of the complaint case, Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia has

withdrawn the power of attorney earlier given to the complainant and

now he has given a fresh power of attorney to Birendra Prasad

Srivastava, one of the accused of this complaint case, by a registered

deed of general power of attorney dated 12.05.2011 and subsequently

has also filed a petition for his substitution as complainant in the

present case. It is further submitted that Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia had

given power of attorney to Sikandar Yadav, the complainant only for

looking after a particular land, after knowing that he has filed a

Partition Title Suit No. 46 of 2009 on his behalf, soon after he

revoked the power of attorney given in favour of Sikandar Yadav and

a fresh power of attorney was given to Birendra Prasad Srivastava and

the enquiry witnesses have admitted that now Pramod Kumar

Rajgarhia has compromised the case with the accused persons; even

in Title Partition Suit No. 46 of 2009 Birendra Prasad Srivastava has

been substituted in place of Sikandar Yadav. Learned counsel further

submits that filing of the documents by the defendants of the said

partition suit is alleged to be forged but those documents are before

the court and there is no any specific allegation that in what way the

document is forged, so document filed in the said partition suit does

not come within the purview of making of false documents. The

dispute is civil in nature as a partition suit is going on and the

petitioners no. 1 and 2 , being father and son, are co-sharers of

Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia and already the sale deeds which have been

filed in the partition suit is under the scrutiny before the competent

court of civil jurisdiction. It is also submitted that Birendra Prasad

Srivastava, now the complainant of the present complaint case in

place of Sikandar Yadav, has filed a withdrawal application for

withdrawal of the present complaint case. The entire allegation even

taken in entirety and the material transpiring during the enquiry do not

disclose any prima facie offence of forgery and of criminal

intimidation.

Contrary to that, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the O.P. No. 2 submits that a prima facie case is made out against

the petitioners and a criminal as well as civil case may be proceeded

together against them in the present facts of the case.

Having considered contrary rival submissions and on

perusal of record, the Court finds that complainant filed this complaint

case as well as Partition Suit No. 46 of 2009 on behalf of Pramod

Kumar Rajgarhia, who had executed power of attorney in his favour

but after filing of the complaint petition and the partition suit by the

complainant Sikandar Yadav, power of attorney, given to him, was

revoked by Pramod Kumar Rajgarhia on 12.05.2011, thereafter

executed a fresh power of attorney in favour of Birendra Prasad

Srivastava, who also happens to be one of the accused in this case and

also petition for withdrawal of the protest complaint case has been

filed. Moreover, the allegation relates to filing of some sale deeds by

the accused persons in Partition Suit No. 46 of 2009, which is alleged

to be forged but the allegation is vague as no specific averment is

made describing in what manner these documents were forged.

Besides this, documents, already filed by the accused persons, being

defendants in the said partition suit, is under scrutiny of the civil court

of competent jurisdiction and petition for withdrawal of the complaint

too has been filed in this case on 28.05.2011, so in absence of any

ingredients of offence under Sections 465 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of

the process of the court, hence, the entire criminal proceeding

inclusive of the cognizance order dated 18.07.2012 passed in

Complaint Case No. 891(C) of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Bettiah only with respect to the petitioners herein, is hereby

quashed.

The application stands allowed.