Shashi vs State of M.P.

This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24/05/2016 passed in S.T. No.369/2015 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satna whereby against applicants/accused persons charges for offence under sections 420/34, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC have been framed.

In brief, relevant facts of the case are that Kamlesh Tripathi as attorney of Aditya Mishra made a complaint before the District authority that the applicant no.1 and 2 are issuing back dated permission letter/certificates in the name of applicant no.3 to the large number of public for construction of houses on the land bearing Survey No.5/675/3, 5/675/2/1 and 5/675/1/1 situated in Gram Badkhar District Satna showing it government land. While actually it was not government land, it was private land of one Rajendra Mishra and others. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Satna without enquiring into the matter asked the police to register offence against the applicants stating that as the applicant no.3 had denied the fact that he has issued any such certificates and the applicant no.1 and 2 have been issuing forged certificates in his name and the police station Kulgawan District Satna registered a case at Crime no.893/2010 against the applicants. And after completing formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants. While during the investigation, the applicant no.1 has categorically stated that being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Badkhar, he had issued the permissions/certificates for construction of houses on the government land.

The learned JMFC took cognizance against the applicants and committed the case to the Sessions Judge. On behalf of the applicants before framing of the charges it was objected that aforesaid land belong to the government and in this regard the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I, Satna has pronounced judgment in which the complainants Kamlesh Tripathi, Rajendra Mishra and Aditya Mishra were party and the judgment has been upheld by the first appellate court. Without disclosing this fact to the revenue authorities or police, false complaint was made and no alleged forged documents have been produced before the court, therefore, no case of any offence is made out against the applicants and they should be discharged. On the basis of documents produced by the prosecution with the charge sheet, learned lower court found that there is a prima facie case against the applicants for commission of the aforesaid offence by the applicants, hence charges were framed, which is under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the land in dispute not belong to private party, it is government land. This fact has been decided by the judgment and decree dated 02/01/2012 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class I in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2009 and the same is affirmed by the judgment and decree dated 23/11/2013 passed by first appellate court in Civil Suit No. 83A/2013 copy of the judgment and decree also submitted. He further contended that in this case only one permission/certificate regarding permission to construction of house on the aforesaid land has been produced by the prosecution, which is issued in favour of one Tulsidas by the applicant no.3 and Tulsidas has stated in his statement that certificate has been issued by the applicant no.3 and in this regard applicant no.2 and 3 assisted him after taking money. Applicant no.3 itself has disclosed to investigating officer that being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat at the time of his tenure he issued several permissions and certificates in accordance with law and has not committed any forgery, hence prima facie against the applicants no case of preparation of forged documents or for using it knowingly that it is forged or for cheating to any body is not made out, hence the impugned order be set aside.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants and stated that on the basis of statement of Tulsidas and earlier occasion statement given by the applicant no.3 that he had not issued any certificate about aforesaid land and admission that aforesaid land belong to Rajendra Mishra, it is prima facie appears that the applicants have prepared forged documents for the purpose of cheating and used it, hence the impugned order is not illegal and not require any interference.

Having considered the contention of the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the aforesaid land at present is not a private land, it is government land as declared by the civil court by the decree as mentioned above and applicant no.3 has categorically stated during investigation before police that being a Sarpanch in the year 1997 to 1989 by exercising power under section 244 of the Panchayat Act, he issued permissions or certificates for construction on government land to the persons, who were not having any house in the locality. He has not permitted anybody on the private land particularly any land belong to Adhitya Mishra and Rajendra Mishra or Kamlesh Tripathi but the revenue officer have made this complaint and police have filed challan on account of one statement given by applicant no.3 Baijnath to Rajendra Prasad Mishra by giving letter to him on 24/01/2000, in which it was stated by the applicant no.3 that aforesaid land belong to Rajendra Prasad Mishra and about their land he had not issued any certificate or permission for construction of house. If anybody claimed that he has any permission or certificate issued by him be treated forged. On the basis of this letter it is said that the permission or certificate issued to Tulsidas is forged.

On perusal of record, it is found that alleged forged certificate dated 12/02/1989 is bearing signature of the applicant no.3 and applicant no.3 during investigation or before the court has claimed that it is his signature. Even Tulsidas from which possession it has been seized is also saying that it was issued by the applicant no.3 and there is no other evidence on record to establish the fact that this document is forged document except general statement of the applicant no.3, which contained in the letter dated 24/01/2000 written to Rajendra Prasad Mishra. If statement given in the letter dated 24/01/2000 be treated true then no case of preparation of forged document will be constituted. Instead of it offence regarding giving false statement would be made out, which is not equivalent to preparation of forged documents and the letter dated 24/01/2000 is written by the applicant no.3 in personal capacity, which also not come under purview of giving false evidence. This statement can only be used for corroboration or contradiction purpose against the applicant no.3 if he give any statement before any legal authority about aforesaid subject matter. It can???t be considered as a substantial evidence about the fact mentioned in the letter.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there is prima facie material on record to establish the fact that applicants have prepared forged document with the intention to cheat the real owner of the land and the same was used for that purpose.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court comes to the conclusion that there is no material on record to establish that there is a prima facie case against the applicant for prosecuting them for committing offence under sections420/34, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and prosecution of the applicants would be unjust and would be misuse of the process of the court, hence present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and applicants are discharged from the offences under sections 420/34, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.