AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application has been filed for quashing order dated
29.04.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in
Complaint Case No.532(C) of 2013 whereby he has taken cognizance
of the offence under Sections 468, 467 and 471 of IPC and has issued
summons to the petitioners for appearance.
The complainant''s case in brief is that his co-sharers''
share was partitioned in Title Suit No.793 of 2011 so he came in
possession of his share. The complainant''s son Uma Shankar was
married to one Anandita Devi and after his death now she is married
to one Yogendra Singh and living there along with her minor daughter
Sonam Kumari. Another daughter of Uma Shankar was earlier
married to Kunal Sharma, the accused. Further allegation is that his
daughter-in-law and his grand daughter have sold the land of the
complainant, coming in conspiracy with other accused so they have
created a forged sale deed as well as power of attorney. Further
allegation is that Kunal Sharma also purchased land from Balram
Singh, holding forged power of attorney thereafter he has sold the
land to Randhir, other accused are witnesses of the sale deed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are the son-in-law of the son of the complainant Uma
Shankar. Uma Shankar had two daughters from two wives Khusboo
@ Snehlata and Sonam Kumari. In the year 2000, a Title Partition
Suit No.47 of 2000 was disposed of on the basis of compromise and a
compromise decree was prepared and the share of his father-in-law,
after his death devolved upon his wife and daughters and they came in
possession of the land and their names were mutated in Register II.
Khusboo and Anandita Devi, wife of Uma Shankar and Sonam
Kumari executed sale deed in favour of Balram Singh and Balram
Singh had executed a power of attorney in favour of Kunal Sharma
with regard to the same property and with respect to the said land he
has executed sale deed in favour of Randhir Sharma on 18.10.2012. It
is also submitted that in Partition Suit No.793 of 2011, Khusboo @
Snehlata did not appear but a compromise decree was prepared in her name so she has filed Miscellaneous Case No.5/2012 for setting aside
that compromise decree passed in Title Suit No.793 of 2011. It is also
submitted that share of Uma Shankar, son of the complainant was
inherited by his wife and his daughters, who executed sale deed with
respect to his share of land to Balram Singh and Balram Singh issued
power of attorney to Kunal Sharma, petitioner no.1 and on that basis
he has sold the land to petitioner no.2 so taking the allegation in
entirety, no prima facie offence of making forged document is made
out in this case so cognizance under Sections 468, 467 and 471 of IPC
is bad in law and continuation of the proceeding would be abuse of
the process of the Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no.2 submits that in Partition Suit No.793 of 2011, the schedule
of land, which came into share of the complainant has been sold by
petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.2 by creating a forged document so he
has cheated the complainant.
Having considered the rival submissions of both
sides and on perusal of the records, the Court is of the view that no
prima facie case of making a forged document considering the entire
allegation levelled in the complaint is made out. Making a false
document is defined in Section 464 of IPC. In three conditions a
forged document is created, first if a person executes a document with
intention to causing it to be believed that it was not executed by an
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it
was not executed, secondly, without a lawful authority dishonestly or
fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise makes alteration in a
document, thirdly who dishonestly and fraudulently causes any person
to execute a document knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot know the contents of the
document. In the present case all these three ingredients of making a
forged document is absent.
In the backdrop of the facts alleged in the complaint,
for aforesaid reason no prima facie case under Sections 468, 467 and
471 of IPC is made out against the petitioners; so continuation of the
criminal proceeding in the matter would be an abuse of the process of
Court, hence the order taking cognizance dated 29.04.2013 and the
entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.532 (C) of 2013 is
hereby quashed.
The petition stands allowed.