The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2020 1. Raj Kumar Bhadani, S/o Late Madhusudan Prasad, aged about 51 years 2. Anju Bhadani, W/o Raj Kumar Bhadani, aged about 50 years, both are the residents of Jhumri Tilaiya, Ward No. 9, Near Samanto Petrol Pump, P.O. + P.S.- Tilaiya, dist.- Koderma Versus ...... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dayanand Prasad, S/o Late Madhusudan Prasad, R/o Jhumri Tilaiya, Ward No. 9, Near Petrol Pump, P.O. + P.S.- Tilaiya, Dist.- Koderma ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Md. Kaisar Alam, Adv. : Mr. Jitendra Pandey , Addl. PP : Mr. Dilip Kr. Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Koderma whereby and whereunder learned SDJM, Koderma has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 read with Section 120B of IPC in connection with Complaint Case no. 1787 of 2016. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have got a gift deed executed by their mother in their favour in respect of the joint family property taking the advantage of the weakness of mind of their mother. Admittedly, the complainant has instituted a case in civil court for the land in question. On the basis of the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the Statement of the four enquiry witnesses learned SDJM, Koderma found the prima facie case for the said offences and ordered for issuance of summons. 1 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2020 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is the younger brother of the complainant and petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner no. 1. It is next submitted that this is a counterblast case of Telaiya P.S. case no. 326 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 188 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of IPC in which, after completion of investigation, learned court has taken cognizance of the said offences against the complainant. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The complainant has failed to discharge the obligation as eldest son of the parents, Smt. Bhado Devi, the common mother of the complainant and the petitioner no. 1, executed a WILL in favour of the petitioner no. 2. It is next submitted that no case punishable under Section 467 and 468 read with Section 120B of IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted that Bhado Devi submitted an application on 19.11.2015 to the Sub- Registrar, Koderma requesting him to register the deed of gift, dated 19.11.2015 in favour of the petitioner no. 2 by coming to her house as she was ill and not in a position to go to the offence of the Sub-Registrar and Bhado Devi has put her thumb impression in presence of the Sub-Registrar, Koderma. The petitioner no. 2 has filed Probate Case no. 02 of 2016 in the court of Principal District Judge, Koderma for probate of the WILL and for wrecking vengeance, this false case has been foisted, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that the allegations made in the complaint, the statement on Solemn Affirmation of the complainant and the enquiry witnesses, are considered to be true, then the offence for which, prima facie case has been found by the learned SDJM, Koderma, is made out, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 2 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2020 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the documents stated to be forged one, is a registered instrument, registered by the Sub – Registrar, Koderma. The undisputed fact remain that the complainant has filed a case in the Civil court for the land in question. It is also a fact that the petitioner no. 2 has filed Probate Case no. 2 of 2016, which has been converted to an Original Suit no. 01 of 2019 which is sub- judice. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the manner of creation of false document, is not specific and is vague one. It has not been specifically mentioned, as to in respect of which document and in what manner, the petitioners have made false document. This court is of the considered view that keeping in view of the facts of the case; this court is of the considered view that complaint case has been instituted for wrecking vengeance because of the civil litigation between the parties. The grievance if any of the complainant can be taken care of in the connected civil proceeding. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the continuation of this criminal case against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law, hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case no. 1787 of 2016 be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case no. 1787 of 2016 is quashed and set aside.
Decision
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 28th August, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 3 Cr.M.P. No. 814 of 2020