Nawaboddin and Others vs The State and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

The present petition is filed by the petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 3 to 9 in Crime No. 49/2015 for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 465, 468, 470 and 471 read with Section 149 of IPC.

After issuance of notice, the respondent No. 2 is represented by the counsel Sri B.V. Jalde and the respondent No. 1 - State is represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

On perusal of the materials on record it reveals that on 29.03.2015, the second respondent lodged a first information report before the Gandhi Gunj Police, Bidar, stating that his father had three sons by name Maqbool Ali, Iqbal Ali and the second respondent, all of them jointly purchased the land bearing survey No. 58/1 of Amlapur, measuring 7 acres 3 guntas under registered sale deed from Sri Shahafatulla Kadri S/o. Shaha Turab Ali of Bidar and their names have been mutated jointly in respect of the said land. It is alleged that his brother Iqbal Ali died in the year 1989. It is further alleged that in the year 1993, the accused persons particularly A1 and A2, who are no other than the brothers of respondent No. 2, in collusion with all other accused persons created sale deeds by impersonating the respondent No. 2 and also forging the signature of respondent No. 2 entered into the sale transaction with each other in order to defeat the valuable rights of respondent No. 2. Therefore, alleging that all of them are responsible in creating such documents, impersonating the respondent No. 2, have cheated the respondent No. 2 and as such, he requested for taking action against the accused Nos. 3 to 9 and other accused persons.

The records also disclose that respondent No. 2 had already filed a suit in OS No. 261/2012 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Bidar against the petitioners herein and others for declaration of his title and for other reliefs in respect of the same property involved in the Criminal Case.

It is the specific case of the plaintiff (respondent No. 2 herein) as narrated in paragraph 5 of the plaint in the said suit, reiterating the averments made in the complaint as noted above specifically stating that the defendants have colluded with each other and entered the name of the plaintiff as vendor No. 3 in the alleged sale deed and got executed and registered the said sale deeds by way of impersonation and playing fraud and mischief and they have cheated the plaintiff Especially, this plaintiff has neither agreed to sell nor sold out the suit land to these defendants nor executed the alleged registered sale deeds in favour of these defendants. Therefore, those documents are created by playing fraud, mischief and impersonation and they are fit to be cancelled.

Looking to the above, it reveals that the above contentions are taken up in the first information report as well in the plaint. Therefore, I can understand if the complaint was filed much earlier to the filing of the suit, then the proceedings could not have been stalled or quashed by this Court though the law says that if two proceedings are independent and those have been filed without any intention to harass each other, such proceedings can proceed in accordance with law both in the Criminal Court and in the Civil Court. But in this particular case, the allegations made in the plaint and also in the criminal complaint are absolutely one and the same and the suit was filed in the year 2012 and after long lapse of three years, the present FIR is lodged in 2015. Hence, I do not want to express any of my opinion with regard to the merits of the case. As contended by the learned counsels when the rights of the parties have to be decided before the Civil Court and they both agreed in the event the Trial Court in the Civil Case comes to the conclusion that the documents which are relied upon by the defendants to claim their ownership over the said sale deed are not genuine and fraud has been played and impersonation has been done by the defendant and there was any cheating or mischief, the parties may be provided liberty to make such an application before the Civil Court to refer the matter to the criminal Court for appropriate criminal action against the persons who have committed such offences.

In view of the above said submission and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has also observed that u/s. 195 of Cr.P.C, the Court can take cognizance of the offences u/s. 471, 475 and 476 along with other connected offence, if those offences are committed in respect of the document produced before the Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court on the complaint in writing of that Court or by an Officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. The criminal Court can take cognizance and proceed with the matter. Coupled with this provision, if Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is read in its proper perspective, it also gives full opportunity to the parties to make necessary application. This Provision reads thus-

"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 - (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, file a complaint before the criminal Court for taking appropriate action in this behalf."

Therefore, the above said two provisions makes it abundantly clear that when a civil case has already been pending and the allegations made in the criminal case are similar to that of civil suit and already made before this Court and in the event of the civil Court come to the conclusion that some offence has been committed with reference to the document produced before the Court by any of the parties to the proceedings, then the Court either initiate suo-motu proceedings or any application made to it by the parties, can refer the complaint to the competent criminal Court for appropriate action. Therefore, without referring to any other merits of the case, whether criminal case and civil case can simultaneously proceed, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the parties can agitate their rights before the civil Court and in the event of plaintiff proving that those documents are concocted and fraud has been played and impersonation has been done and also the said documents are created by playing mischief with an intention to cheat, the plaintiff then he is very well at liberty to make an application to the civil Court to refer the matter to the criminal Court against the concerned persons for appropriate action to be taken.

With these observations, the petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

"The petition is allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings, investigation in Crime No. 49/2015 on the Gandhi Gunj Police Station, so far as these petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed."