K. Padmalata vs State Of Odisha & Ors

S. Pujahari, J

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to quash the FIR lodged against them in Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case

No.181 dated 23. 04.2016 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1924 of 2016 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar as well as the entire

proceeding initiated in the said case.

Heard the respective learned counsel for the parties through V.C. and perused the relevant papers on record.

The F.I.R. sought to be quashed has been lodged by the present opposite party no.2 on the allegations, inter-alia, that the petitioners forged and

fabricated certain documents in respect of a piece of land measuring Ac.0.206 decimals bearing Plot No.459 under Mutation Khata No.611/806 at

Mouza-Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, and at the instance of the petitioner no.2, the petitioner no.1 persuaded the opposite party no.2 to purchase

the said land, and executed and got registered a sale deed in respect of the same in favour of the opposite party no.2 for a consideration of

Rs.30,00,000/- on 23.09.2006. It is further averred by the opposite party no.2 that subsequently, in the year 2010 when he intended to raise some

permanent construction over the said land, one Pradeep Mishra and his representative, namely, Aridam was put up resistance on the ground that he

(Pradeep Mishra) had purchased the said property on 1. 10.1980 from the rightful owner â€" Raja Krushna Chandra Dev under a registered deed and

got the same duly mutated in his favour. When the opposite party no.2 brought this fact to the notice of the petitioners, they advised him to file a civil

suit, and the opposite party no.2 filed a civil suit bearing No.559 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar against Pradeep Mishra. In the said

suit, the defendant produced documents regarding acquisition of title from the owner â€" Raja Krushna Chandra Dev, and mutation of the land in his

favour, and the opposite party no.2 (plaintiff) became convinced that he had been cheated by the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners

fraudulently executed some documents regarding purchase of the case land by one Rupashree Patnaik from Raja Krushna Chandra Dev, mutation of

the land in favour of Rupashree Patnaik and execution of a deed of power of attorney by Rupashree Patnaik in favour of the petitioner no.1 for sale of

the case land etc., and that on the basis of those fake forged documents, they executed the sale deed in favour of the opposite party no.2. The

opposite party no.2 then filed a complaint before the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, and the same on being referred to police in view of Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C. has been registered as F.I.R. No.181 of 2016 under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/34 of IPC in Chandrasekharpur Police Station

corresponding to C.T. Case No.1924 of 2016 in the court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, and the case is still under investigation as reported.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 executed the sale deed in question on the strength of a deed of

power of attorney executed by Rupashree Patnaik and Niroj Kumar Patnaik who had purchased different tracts of land out of Ac.7.243 decimals

from Raja Krushna Chandra Dev, and that since the informant had purchased the land after making necessary enquiry, no fault much less any

criminality can be found with the power of attorney holder. It is further argued by him that when the Informant has already resorted to civil action

against Pradeep Mishra, without impleading the present petitioners as parties to the said civil suit, no criminal prosecution should have been launched

for the selfsame cause of action. He further submits that no mala fides can be attributed to the petitioner no.1 inasmuch as she is ready and willing to

return the consideration amount of Rs.12,50,000/- to the Informant subject to cancellation of the sale deed and restoration of possession of the case

land.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 (Informant) submits that from the very inception of the deal the petitioners

carried dishonest intention by forging documents and inducing the Informant to purchase the case land although they had knowledge that the same had

been purchased by Pradeep Mishra and mutated in his favour. The learned counsel for the Informant submits that when the allegations disclose a

criminal offence, available of civil remedy or pendency of a civil litigation does not operate a bar on a criminal prosecution. He has placed reliance on

a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar and others vrs. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 2014 (57) OCR 943

(SC) and a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in CriminaWl rit Petition No.442 of 2009 (Delhi vrs. Union Territory of Daman and

others), decided on 09.06.2009.

Keeping in view the rival contentions, I have gone through the allegations made in the F.I.R. It cannot be said that the allegations so made are

incapable to disclose any prima-facie case of forgery of documents and cheating. It is no more res-integra that merely because a civil suit is pending

or a civil forum can be availed of for adjudication of the dispute, that by itself would not be a bar on launching of a criminal prosecution for the same

cause of action. The only test for initiating a criminal action is whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. / complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

In the case at hand, the petitioners without denying the transaction take the plea of bonafides, since the investigation is still ongoing, the questions of

forgery, fraud etc. are yet to be delved into. To reiterate, pendency of a civil suit does not afford a good ground to the petitioners to seek for quashing

of the F.I.R. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as revealed from the record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to quash the F.I.R.

In the result, this CRLMC being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available

in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s

Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

……………………….