SUDHIR SINGH v. SANHOULI, P.S. CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, DISTRICT KHAGARIA

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJIV PRASAD, SON OF SRI KRISHNA NAND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA Versus SANHOULI, P.S. CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate With Cr.Misc. No.30158 of 2009

1. AJIT SINGH, SON OF AMOL SINGH. 2. SUDHIR SINGH, SON OF LATE PRAMOD SINGH. 3. SUBODH SINGH, SON OF LATE PRAMOD SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SANHAULI, P.S. CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, KHAGARIA, P.O. AND DISTRICT KHAGARIA. ----- PETITIONERS

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJEEV PRASAD, SON OF SRI KRISHNA NAND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Versus SANHAULI, P.S. CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, KHAGARIA, P.O. AND DISTRICT KHAGARIA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate For the State :- Mr. B.P. Singh, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate ----------- 6

7.10.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 1.4.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khagaria in Complaint Case No. 87C of 2009, by which cognizance has been taken for an offence under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468 and 420/120B of the Indian 2 Penal Code. There are eleven accused persons in this case, however, only five of them have filed these three quashing applications. The complaint has been filed by Rajiv Prasad who is the cousin grand son of Wing Commander Ramesh Chandra Sinha. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the lands appertaining to Khata No. 282, 284, Khesra No. 498, 497 measuring 4 Bighas, 4 Kathas and 15 Dhurs belong to the family of Ramesh Chandra Sinha. It is said that the said land was purchased in 1913. The allegation in short is that the accused persons with the help of Revenue Karamchari created a forged Jamabandi in the name of Kujo Singh. As a result creation of the forged Jamabandi, rent receipts were also issued which are forged documents and the accused nos. 2 to 6 claim that they the heirs of Kujo Singh and as such they are entitled for the title and possession of the land in dispute. The matter came to the notice of the complainant when a petition was filed before the Additional Collector (who is in no way empowered to issue rent receipts) by some of the accused persons. In the said petition it has been specifically mentioned that since the ex-landlord could not file the return in the name of Kujo Singh, the Additional Collector may order for opening the Jamabandi in the name of heirs of Kujo Singh. Later after filing of the complaint petition the petitioners claim that they had in fact not filed the application, and, as such the matter was dropped by the Additional Collector. On behalf of the petitioners it is argued that the case is 3 of civil nature. They have produced the return of the Jamabandi of the landlord and certain rent receipts have been issued in the name of Kujo Singh. This Court would not like to comment at this stage on the issuance of the rent receipts or on the said return which has been produced before this Court, as obviously it may prejudice the case of the petitioners for the future. Suffice to say that the very return and rent receipts are the subject matter of dispute as it is alleged that with the help of the Karamchari Sudhir Singh, these rent receipts have been granted. In my opinion the question that whether this matter would be the subject matter of a civil dispute would not arise in a case as the parameters on which the civil dispute were to be judged would be quite different. In the civil case the petitioners would have to establish that in fact there was a Jamabandi running in the name of Kujo Singh, and that they are the heirs of Kujo Singh, they would have to explain as to how rent receipts were issued in the name of Kujo Singh when he was not alive. In the criminal proceeding the court has to look into the fact as to whether the documents under challenge are forged and fabricated documents. The court will have to examine whether the ingredients of misappropriation of property are made out against the complainant and as such it cannot be said that the parameters for deciding the two cases are the same. Learned counsel on behalf of the complainant submits that the revenue records were destroyed and in fact no Jamabandi was ever created as in the name of Kujo Singh such the documents 4 produced on behalf of the complainant is absolutely forged moreover, the petitioners have been recognized as the landlord. It has also been submitted that the lands have been sold to the wife of colleague of revenue Karmchari who had created the rent receipts, in order to mislead the persons of the locality so that they may purchase the lands in question believing that the opposite party has a valid title to the land. Actually the sale has been made in order to give credence to the title of the petitioners who claim to be heirs of Kujo Singh; whereas the revenue Karmchari with the help of other named accused persons has created a forged and false Jamabandi in the name of Kujo Singh to misappropriate the entire lands belonging to the complainant. This court finds that the court cannot interfere and exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the order taking cognizance. These applications are dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)