Saroj Sohaney vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner Smt. Saroj

Sohaney for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 Smt. Geeta Dubey and respondent no.3 Saurabh Dubey for the offence punishable

under Sections 417, 420 and 465 of the IPC and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

The facts giving rise to this M.Cr.C. may be summarized as hereunder: Complainants/respondents Smt. Geeta and Saurabh filed a complaint against

the accused/petitioner Smt. Saroj to the effect that respondents have been in possession of agricultural land survey no. 35 admeasuring 4.44 hectares

for past 25 years and they have been cultivating the same. Petitioner Saroj lives permanently in District-Seoni and has never visited the aforesaid land;

however, taking advantage of the fact that her name was recorded as Bhoomiswami on aforesaid land in revenue records, she made an application to

the Co-operative Society, Barela, which is authorized by Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department of State of Madhya Pradesh for

her registration as a farmer on aforesaid land for the purpose of procurement of wheat. In aforesaid application, she falsely claimed that she had sown

wheat crop on aforesaid land, which is likely to yield 135 quintals of wheat. Actually the crop on aforesaid land was sown by the respondents and the

yield was also taken by them; however, the petitioner obtained wheat from somewhere and deposited the same in the Co-operative Society.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the petitioner, respondents filed a written objection with the S.D.O. (Revenue), Jabalpur. On the direction of the

S.D.O., Nayab Tehsildar directed the Patwari to conduct an enquiry. The Patwari, after due enquiry, submitted a report to the effect that the crop

was sown and taken by the respondents; however, the S.D.O. further directed the Tehsildar to conduct a thorough enquiry. Accordingly, Tehsildar

conducted a thorough enquiry and submitted the report before the S.D.O. on 05.04.2013. Concurring with findings of the Tehsildar, S.D.O. directed

the District Supplies Controller to remove the name of petitioner as cultivator of aforesaid land and replace the same with that of respondent no.2

Geeta Dubey and respondent no.3 Saurabh Dubey. As such, petitioner forged the documents and defrauded the respondents, which is punishable

under Sections 417, 420 and 465 of the IPC.

Aforesaid complaint was dismissed by the trial Court under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by order dated 23.06.2014. Respondents challenged the

aforesaid order before the 9th A.S.J., Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.304/2014. By order dated 30.07.2015, learned 9th ASJ held that order dated

23.06.2014 passed by the Magistrate was cryptic and the complaint was dismissed without considering the relevant material and assigning detailed

reasons; therefore, the matter was remitted back to learned Magistrate to take into consideration all relevant aspects and pass a reasoned order.

Accordingly, learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter and by order dated 27.08.2015 registered the complaint under Section 420 of the IPC against

the petitioner. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, petitioner/accused Saroj has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the

complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur.

The complaint and the order directing its registration has been assailed mainly on the ground that this is a civil dispute with regard to agricultural

land between the petitioner and the respondents and a civil suit in this regard is pending between the parties. It has further been submitted that no

forgery has been committed by the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that false averments were made by the petitioner in the application made by her to

the Co-operative Society, Barela, it would not amount to forgery of a document. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not defrauded

anybody. It has not been held as yet by a Court of law that the petitioner is not in possession of the disputed land. Petitioner has not deceived the

respondents and fraudulently or dishonestly induced them to deliver any property to any person or to consent to do or omit to do anything which they

have would not have done or omitted to do if they were not so deceived; therefore, alleged acts of the petitioner would not fall under the ambit of

cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the petitioner had made false averments regarding having sown crops on

the disputed land and having obtained yield of 135 quintals of wheat from the disputed land with intent to injure the interests of respondents; therefore,

she has committed the offence of forgery as well as cheating as defined in the IPC. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the

respondents has invited attention of the Court to the judgments rendered by Nagpur High Court in the case of Krishnarao Vs. State of M.P., AIR

1953 Nagpur 165, by Lahore High Court in the case of Emperor Vs. Abdul Hamid, AIR 1944 Lahore 380 and by Madras High Court in the case of

Sivananda Mudali In re., AIR 1926 Madras 1072. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has also submitted that quashing of complaint in exercise

of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the nature of dispute was primarily civil, was not proper. In support of aforesaid

contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another, 2001

AIR SCW 4142; therefore, it has been prayed that this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. be dismissed.

On perusal of the record available and due consideration of the rival contention, the Court is of the view that this petition under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. must succeeds for the reasons hereinafter stated.

To begin with, the Court shall consider that if all allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and presumed to be true, whether

offence of forgery would be made out? Forgery involves making a false document. False documents may be of one of following three kinds. Firstly,

when a document is dishonestly or fraudulently executed with intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by

some other persons. Secondly, when a document is dishonestly or fraudulently canceled or a material part thereof is altered without lawful authority

and thirdly, a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes a document to be executed or altered by someone knowing that such person, owing to a

disability like unsoundness of mind or intoxication or deception practiced upon him, was not capable of knowing contents of the documents or the

nature of alteration.

In this regard, judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 may profitably be

referred to; wherein, it has been held that:

The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or

false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused,

in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have

made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.

An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:

The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such

document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not

made or executed.

The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful

authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.

The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not

by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the

alteration.

In short, a person is said to have made a “false documentâ€, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by

someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his

senses.

No such circumstances exist in the present case. In the case at hand, there is simply an allegation that a false averments have been made in an

application made to an authority. This by itself is not sufficient to constitute forgery. As such, no offence of forgery is made out in the present case.

Now we shall consider whether the respondents have been cheated by the petitioner?

The definition of cheating as defined in Section 415 reads as hereunder:

Cheating.â€"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person,

or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not

do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation

or property, is said to “cheatâ€​.

There is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner deceived the respondents in any manner and fraudulently or dishonestly induced them to

deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person would retain any property. There is no allegation either that the petitioner induced the

respondents to do or to omit to do anything, which they would not have done or omitted to do if they were not so deceived. Thus, it is obvious that the

respondents were not cheated by the petitioner in any manner.

Learned counsel for the respondents has feebly argued that the petitioner had cheated the officers of Co-operative Society, Barela. It may be

noted in this regard that the petitioner is not in possession of the agricultural land and she had not sown any crops on that land, is merely an allegations

at this stage. This allegation is yet to be examined by a Court of law. Simply because the revenue authorities in some sort of enquiries made at the

behest of the respondents, have found that the petitioner is not in possession of the agricultural land or had sown crops, does not mean that the

petitioner is not actually in possession of the land and the averments made by the respondents in their written objection to the authorities, are false. In

the Courts of law, claims and counter claims are routinely made. Some of them are proved and some are not proved. If the Courts start going after

the parties who had failed to prove their claims, it would lead to chaos and would clearly to be an abuse of process of Court.

The Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapal Singh and others Vs. Maharaj Singh and another, AIR 1982 SC 1238 has held as follows:

......""Day in and day out in courts averments made by one set of witnesses are accepted and the counter-averments are rejected. If in all such

cases complaints under S. 199, I. P. C. are to be filed not only there will open up floodgates of litigation but. it would unquestionably be an abuse of

the process of the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent told us that a tendency to perjure is very much on the increase and unless by firm

action courts do not put their foot down heavily upon such persons the whole Judicial process would come to ridicule. We see some force in the

submission but it is equally true that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking

jurisdiction of the criminal court. Complainant herein is an Advocate. He lost in both courts in the rent control proceedings and has now rushed to the

criminal court. This itself speaks volumes. Add to this the fact that another suit between the parties was pending. from 1975. The conclusion is

inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this background is an abuse of the process of law and the High Court rather glossed

over this important fact while declining to exercise its power under S. 482, Cr. P. C.

We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad, ought not to have taken cognizance of the proceedings

for reasons herein indicated in respect of different offences. We consider it to be a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under S. 482, Cr. P. C., 1973. We

accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Secunderabad.

In aforesaid view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, even if all averments made in the complaint are taken at their face value and

presumed to be true, they do not disclose any offence; therefore, allowing the trial Court to proceed with such complaint against the petitioner would

obviously be abuse of process of Court; therefore, exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint is

warranted. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 are distinguishable on facts.

Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

The complaint dated 03.07.2013 filed by respondents Smt. Geeta Dubey and Saurabh Dubey against petitioner Saroj Sohaney and criminal

proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur, are quashed