MD. IBRAHIM & Ors. v. STATE OF BIHAR & Anr.

,;, ., ~ ""\' [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1254 MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.1695 .of 2009) SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 A B [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss. 420, 467, 471, 504, 323 and 341 - Complaint under - Complainant alleging that the land c owned by him was sold by one accused to the other accused - Allegation also against the scribe, witness and stamp vendor to the sale deeds - Charges framed - Application for discharge dismissed - Application uls 482 Cr. P. C. dismissed - On appeal, held: Averments in complaint do not make out D offence ulss. 420, 467, 471 and 504 - Hence, charges thereunder quashed - However, complaint technically shows ingredients of offences u/ss. 341 and 323 ..o. Therefore, charges thereunder, not disturbed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. E F I Second respondent filed a complaint against appel, ants 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) and two others, before the Cbief Judicial Magistrate, alleging that first accused had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the secon(t accused in respect of a portion of the land of which ~e was the owner. The third, fourth and fifth accuse were the witness, scribe and stamp vendor to the sale' deeds and had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents. When he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused and G hit him. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences ulss. 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC and referred the complaint for investigation uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C .. On the 1254 H MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. v. STATE OF 'BIHAR & ANR. 1255 • .... basis thereof, an FIR was registered. A charge-sheet was A filed. The accused applied for discharge. First accused claimed to be owner of the I; and stated that he bonafide sold the land. He also stated that the complaint, even if accepted to be true, would only give rise to a civil dispute and did not constitute any offence. The Magistrate B rejected the application for discharge, holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges. The accused thereafter filed an application uls. 482 Cr.PC. High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the prese_nt appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court c ~, ·;.. HELD:

Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the \same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a 0 civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (Para 7] (1261-D-E]