Durga Vishwakarma v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 :- :- :- --- Mr. Kalyan Banerjee , Advocate Mr. Vishambhar Shastri, Advocate Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate ---- 3/07.12.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

#2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated

27.04.2015 in connection with C.P.Case No.2086 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, at Dhanbad.

#3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that by a Registered Deed No.5571 dated 04.05.1982, the petitioner has purchased the land of Plot No.643, of Mouza No.53 under Khata No.41 from the mother of the Complainant and through another Sale Deed No.9806 dated 22.09.1990 the petitioner has purchased Plot No.643 and 637 of Mouza No.53, Khata No.38 from the father and uncle of the Complainant and it is further alleged that after manipulated the original Deed No.5571 by inserted the Khata No 38 in place of 41 and added plot No.632 the Petitioner has filed a Title Suit before the Civil Judge, Dhanbad against the complainant and witnesses for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is further alleged that during pendency it has been found by the civil court there is difference in the Original sale deed and the certified copy of the deed as such injunction has been rejected and thereafter the suit has been dismissed for non prosecution. On this allegation of making forged document the present C.P.Case has been 2 lodged by the complainant against the petitioner.

#4. Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an authority and the allegations are made of altering the registered deed and in view of that, section 465 IPC so far the petitioner is concerned is not attracted.

#5. The said argument of Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner is resisted by Mr. Pallava, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 on the ground that the allegations are there of manipulating the registered deed and he further submits that in a title suit the said manipulated sale deed was used and the suit also the petitioner has not pursued and pursuant to that the suit has been dismissed.

#6. It appears that in the complaint there is allegation of altering the original sale deed No.5571 by way of scratching out the Khata no.41 and in its place, endorsed it to Khata No.38 and even the plot number was also endorsed as plot no.632 after plot no.643 and further the Title Suit No.17 of 2009 was filed which was dismissed which was being agitated on the basis of the altered sale deed. In view of this the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is of defence which can be only appreciated by the learned trial court. No case of interference is made out.

#8. Cr.M.P. No.196 of 2016 is dismissed. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,