Nanu Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (complainant) as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

This criminal misc. petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the FIR No. 195 of 2008 dated 9.10.2008 registered at Police Station Ladnu, District Nagaur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2 complainant filed a complaint in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu against the Petitioner and two other persons, inter alia, stating therein that he is a permanent resident of Ladnu and is in his near relation. It was further stated in the complaint that there is a plot of land measuring 55 Gaj. in width and 70/73-1/2 Gaj. in length in the ownership of one Manak Chand S/o Bal Chand Patni and Nirmal Kumar Patni, situated in Ladnu at Vishwakarma Road. Out of said plot of land 1/2 portion thereof was agreed to be sold to the complainant by said Sh. Manak Chand and a for his registered agreement to sale dated 14.10.1985 was executed between them. It was further stated that out of this half portion of land from the south portion thereof 20 Gaj. land was sold by him to sons of one Gajanand Jangid, through a registered sale deed and remaining 7-1/2 Gaj. land was sold by him to one Vandna Jangid in August 2008 through a registered sale deed. It was further stated in the complaint that when the present Petitioner came to know about it he in order to grab a major part of the land of his ownership hatched conspiracy and while mentioning a forged date i.e. 10.10.1996, dishonestly and fraudulently got an agreement to sale (''Likhit Bechan'') allegedly executed from one Ramdev Ram, R/o Deedwana on a stamp paper of Rs. 10 bearing No. 149, purchased in the name of complainant. In the said document, Sohan Ram, another accused was shown as a witnesses and in the said document viz. forged sale-deed dated 10.10.1996, signatures of the complainant were forged. It was further alleged that all this has been done by forging the date and the numbers on the stamp paper whereas stamp was recently issued, and so also, ante-dated the document and mentioned the date as 11.10.1996. It was further alleged that his (complainant) signatures on the said document were forged. Thus, a forged document has been prepared and on the basis of said forged document, the Petitioner has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu and has also obtained a temporary injunction and it is only when he (complainant) received the said temporary injunction order that he came to know about the said forged document. It was thus, alleged that the Petitioner in collusion with, two other accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy, committed forgery by creating a false document by dishonest and fraudulent means, forged his signatures and sought to use this forged document as genuine and thus, they have committed the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 320/120B of Indian Penal Code.

Mr. M.D. Purohit, Sr. Advocate urged that in view of pendency of civil suit between the parties in which learned civil court had also granted temporary injunction in favour of present Petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, and held that the Petitioner was in possession of the disputed portion of the land, therefore, the proceedings in the criminal court cannot be permitted to be continued as any judgment of Civil Court giving findings in favour of Petitioner would be binding on the criminal court. He further urged that where the matter in issue in criminal proceedings is of such a complicated kind for the decision of which civil courts are preferred as peculiarly qualified, then in such cases, stay in criminal proceedings should be granted pending disposal of the civil suit. He, therefore, prayed for even quashing of impugned FIR.

E converso, Mr. Ramesh Purohit, Learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance upon the decision of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and Others, in which the Apex Court has observed that "as between a civil and the criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence." The Supreme Court, however, recognized that on this point no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The only relevant consideration is likelihood of embarrassment. The other consideration which weighed with the Supreme Court was that a civil suit is often dragged on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait so long in the interest of public justice.

Learned Counsel for the complainant/Respondent No. 2 also relied upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Lal and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 760/2003, decided on 19.1.2004 in which it was held as under:

Briefly stated the facts which are relevant and necessary for the just decision of the instant criminal misc. petition are that an FIR complaint bearing 37/2003 was filed by the complainant Vishnu Kumar at P.S. Nathdwara against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120B, 406, 463 and 468 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that an agriculture land bearing Araji No. 1220 and 1222 located in Mauja Nathdwara was purchased jointly by Smt. Suhagi Bai, Dinesh Kumar and Vishnu Kumar. The said land was converted into Abadi land on 9.9.1991 by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Nathdwara and the pattas were issued accordingly. Thereafter, the plots in dispute question were sold in the year 1994-95 after which one of the purchasers Dinesh Kumar expired. It is alleged that land pertaining to complainant Vishnu Kumar was sold to the father of Dinesh Kumar by a forged sale deed. As a matter of fact, Vishnu Kumar was an employee of Dinesh Kumar and, therefore, during the life time of Dinesh Kumar. Dinesh Kumar purchased the said properties in the name of Vishnu Kumar. He, therefore, obtained the documents of the said properties in the year 2001 and after that he challenged the conversion of the said property before Revenue Appellate Authority claiming that the conversion application was under his forged signature. He also submitted that his counsel Ishwar Lal Samota was having some forms which were signed by him and that the said forms were used for getting the land converted without his consent and accordingly, in the complaint it was submitted that transaction which took place was conducted with his forged signatures, as such, it was alleged that offence noticed above, has been committed by the Petitioner.

In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that powers under Sections 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare case. However, the Hon''ble Apex Court categorized the cases in which the court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that case in hand is not of such nature which needs interference by this Court, In this view of the matter, I do not think it a fit case to interfere u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the instant stands dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 complainant also submitted that powers u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR has to be sparingly and rarely exercised and since in the present case, prima facie, the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 320/120B of Indian Penal Code is made out and signatures on the alleged document (so-called sale deed in favour of Petitioner) has been found to be forged in the F.S.L. report, therefore, the present misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR deserves to be dismissed.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsels for the parties and after going through the relevant record and contents of the FIR, this Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for interfering u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the FIR in hand. Notwithstanding the civil dispute pending in a competent civil court, whether a forgery has been committed or not, is a matter of investigation and trial; and from the contents of the FIR and from the facts narrated above, it cannot be said to be a case where no offence is made out.

Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter and to quash the FIR No. 195 dated 9.10.2008 registered at Police Station Ladnu, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

In the result, the present criminal misc. petition being devoid of merit fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court on 29.10.2009 is vacated.