Santram vs Rajni & Others

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by JMFC, Katni in

unregistered complaint and order of Revisional Court dated 16.11.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.149/2017 by 1st Additional Session Judge,

Katni whereby affirmed the order dated 02.11.2017 of dismissal of a complaint passed by JMFC.

Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant as a complainant filed a complaint against respondents No. 1 to 4 alleging therein that

he has purchased Plot No. 410, situated in Bajrang Mohalla, Housing Board Colony, Katni and constructed a house over that plot. One portion of the

house was rented to respondent No. 1 on 500/- Rupees rent per month. The complainant was in needed of money and asked for the money from

respondent No. 3- Kailash Sahu, then Kailash Sahu said that he will not provide a money in debt. If he needed money, he should contact to sale the

house. The complainant agreed to sale the house, Rs.15,000/- given by Kailash Sahu to the complainant, but, at that time, no document had been

executed. After 4 days Kailash Sahu again approached to the complainant having two blank stamp papers of Rs. 50-50/- and some blank papers and

directed the complainant to make a sign on that papers by saying that it is an execution of an advance money. The complainant signed those papers.

Kailash Sahu told him that after execution of documents, he would provide a copy of those documents to him, but never provided a copy of that

documents to the complainant. Respondent No. 1 kept respondent No. 2-Kailash Nishad as her husband. Kailash Nishad, used to come in the tenant

premises of respondent No. 1 and live along with his wife and later on, respondent No. 1 changed her surname as Nishad. Respondent No. 1 before

April, 2013 paid the rent regularly, but, since April, 2013, she stopped the payment of rent.

On asking the rent, she promise to pay on one pretext to another, but she did not pay any rent and saying that she has purchased the rented house

now become the owner of the house. The complainant along with his wife filed a report in Police Station. Respondent No. 2 threatened the

complainant. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application before the Police Station Kotwali, District Katni and Madhav Nagar, District Katni alleging

therein that they have purchased a rented premises for consideration of 2 Lakhs Rupees out of which paid 1.50 Lakhs Rupees in advance and only

Rs.25,000/- remained to be paid. In the same way, Kailash Sahu also executed a sale-deed of another portion of the house of the complainant stating

therein that he has purchased a house for consideration of Rs.5,60,000/- and paid Rs.1,20,000/-in advance and Rs.4,40,000/- on 02.09.2013.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 created a forged documents and got forged notarized by respondent No. 4. Complainant neither sold the premises nor

received the amount written in the both forged documents of sale.

Complainant served the notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and filed a report before the Superintendent of Police, Katni and Station House Officer of

Police Station Madhav Nagar, but police did not do anything, then complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the

respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC before the Court of JMFC. The Court of JMFC sent the

complaint to the Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni under Section 153(6) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation. The Station House Officer of the Police

Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, after investigation sent the report to the Court of JMFC on 05.07.2014 stating therein that all respondents with a

common intention and dishonest intention to grab the property of the complainant executed the forged documents on stamp of Rs.500/- and got

notarized with the help of respondent No. 4 which was not genuine.

Learned trial Court not registered the complaint on the basis of a report of the police and proceed to inquire into the matter. The complainant

recorded his statement before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and also produced the witness No. 2 Nandu, witness No. 3 Mamta

Patel wife of the complainant, witness No. 4 Ramashre Tiwari, witness No.5 Mukesh Kumar Gupta, witness No. 6 Birju Kol, witness No. 7 Lalla and

witness No. 8 Hiralal.

Learned Court of JMFC, after hearing the complainant and his counsel on the point of registration of the complaint passed an order dated

02.11.2017 found that there is no sufficient ground for taking cognizance and proceed further, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the

Cr.P.C.. The applicant/complainant being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of complaint dated 02.11.2017 preferred a revision under Section 397 of

the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions Judge, Katni. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katni after hearing both parties, vide order dated

16.11.2018 dismissed the revision by affirming the dismissal order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the JMFC.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2018, the applicant preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the learned

both Courts below have failed to appreciate the scope of Section 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C.. Complainant examined eight witnesses to substantiate

the facts of the complaint. The Station House Officer of the Police Station Madhav Nagar clearly mentioned in the report that the respondents created

a forged documents with the help of respondent No. 4. There are sufficient material available on record for registration of the complaint. There was a,

prima facie, case made out against the respondents. The order passed by both the Courts below are erroneous and prays to set aside the order passed

by the Courts below and pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that on going through all the statement of the witnesses and facts alleging in the

complaint, it is apparent that complainant admitted that he has signed on the stamp papers and blank papers. He was in need of money, the

complainant executed both sale-deeds on stamp paper and got notarized that sale-deed before respondent No. 4. The house is constructed on the land

of Nazul. He was neither the owner of the house nor can sale the house belongs to another persons. He categorically mentioned in the deed that

complainant wants to grab the house and just to pressurized the respondents with mala fide intention has filed this complaint. Learned both Courts

below not found any ground to proceed further and rightly dismissed the appeal, therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.

Learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 3 also argues that the complainant is not the owner of the house. He executed the documents after

receiving the money. He was in need of money, he approached to respondent No. 3 and got executed sale of his house i.e. not belongs to him,

therefore, he wrongly filed the complaint against respondent No. 3. Learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the complaint, therefore, he prays to

dismissed this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that he is an advocate by profession and has been authorized to do notary work. All the

parties came before respondent No. 4 for notarizing the documents. Respondent No. 4 only notarized the documents as per law. He did not have any

mala fide intention or any connivance for executing the forge documents. He has falsely been implicated in the complaint by the complainant. Learned

trial Courts have rightly dismissed the complaint against respondent No. 4 and has not committed any error, therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below.

The learned trial Court after receiving the complaint sent the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Police Station

Madhav Nagar, District Katni. After investigation, police sent the report. The Magistrate, after receiving the report directed the police to inquire into

the matter and police submitted the report. On the request of the complainant court proceeded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. where complainant

examined and recorded his statement and also submitted witnesses to substantiate the facts alleged in the complaint.

Before going to deal with this matter further, it is necessary to quote the provision of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

“203. Dismissal of complaint.- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the

inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the

complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.â€​

On bare perusal of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., it is apparent that court should consider the report sent by the Investigating Officer to the Court

and considered the material of inquiry meaning thereby oral evidence of the witnesses submitted by the complainant before dismissing the application.

If Court finds that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents for any offence, then Court will proceed to act under Section 204

of the Cr.P.C. and if not found any offence, the Court may dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

Perused the copy of the report filed along with this petition.

The Station House Officer of the Police Station Madhav Nagar, sent the report dated 05.07.2014, which was received in the Court on 26.07.2015.

The trial Court fixed the case for arguments, but in the meantime complainant filed an application for calling the witnesses and Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22.11.2016 allowed the application and called the witnesses for the evidence. Meaning thereby that Court was inclined to

proceed for the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court fixed the case

for arguments and after hearing the arguments passed an order dated 02.11.2017.

Perused the order.

Court has not considered the report of investigation submitted by the Police Station Madhav Nagar after perusal of the report submitted by the

Police Station Madhav Nagar. During investigation, Investigating Officer clearly indicated that the respondents along with other persons who

arraigned as accused in the complaint created a forge documents, wrote the matter of sale on it after receiving the signature of the complainant,

however, the Court of ACJM not considered that fact in its order. The Revisional Court in its order dated 16.11.2018 evaluated the evidence and

recorded the finding as if Revisional Court was trying the case as a trial court.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kewal Krishan V. Suraj Bhan and another, AIR 1980 SC 1780 categorically explained the scope of

Section 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. and held that at that stage, the magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he was the trial Court.

The standard which is to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as one which is to be kept in view at the stage of

framing charges. The same principal is again reiterated by this Court in the case of Bachchu S/o Pohaakal Baiga Vs. Ashok Kumar Tiwari and

another, 1991 MPLJ 23. If there is any sufficient ground found to proceed for the offence against the accused made in the complaint, the Court should

not dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Both Courts below have not considered the material available on record properly. The statement of the complainant and witnesses reveals that

there is sufficient materials to proceed against the respondents as well as other persons who made as accused in the complaint. This Court finds that

both Courts below committed an error. There is a miscarriage of justice found in the order of both Courts below. Order passed by the trial Court dated

02.11.2017 and the order passed by the revisional Court dated 16.11.2018 are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to restore the complaint and

provide an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and passed a reasoned order.

With the aforesaid observations & directions, this petition is allowed.