Yashomati Devi v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1662 of 2018 Yashomati Devi ----- Versus …… Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.Raja Ram Singh …… Opp. Parties ----- PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Surajdeo Munda, APP : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate ----- JUDGMENT CAV on:17.05.2023 Pronounced on:14.08.2023 This Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by Smt. Vaishaly Srivastava, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in Sadar P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.417 of 2009) by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 239 Cr.P.C has been rejected. 2. The case of the complainant-informant, in brief, is that the complainant is the owner and is in possession of a piece of land, being portion of Plot no.131, Sub-Plot no.131/B, which he had purchased from Smt. Nillie Rao, wife of Shankar Krishna Rao, measuring of an area of 7 Kattha 8 Chhatak by virtue of Registered Deed being Sale Deed no.12148 dated 04.12.1984. The complainant further stated that Suresh Prasad Singh is the brother-in-law from his 1st wife Late Ramuna Devi, who expired on 30.06.1995. The complainant was an Assistant Engineer in Bihar State Electricity Board and was posted at Ranchi in the year 2 1973 to 1979 and again in the year 1980 to 1985 and during his stay at Ranchi, he purchased the above said land but Suresh Prasad Singh (i.e. the husband of the petitioner) in criminal conspiracy set up an imposter (unknown to the complainant), prepared a forged sale deed dated 19.12.1995 which was registered on 16.01.1996. He further stated and alleged that he had given original sale deed dated 04.12.1984 to his brother-in- law Suresh Prasad Singh in good faith and on demand Suresh Prasad Singh stated that the said sale deed has been lost by his nephew Awadhesh Prasad in course of travelling in bus. The
Legal Reasoning
forged sale deed stands in the name of Smt. Yashomati Devi who helped in fabrication of document, which he came to know on 22.10.2008 and 26.12.2008 for which a Panchayati was held to settle the dispute of the property above said but the negotiation failed. Thereafter he filed the Complaint Case No. 47 of 2009 and the same has been sent by the learned court under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C to institute an F.I.R., which has been registered being Sadar P.S. Case No.20 of 2009. 3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Surajdeo Munda, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the has submitted that the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner in a mechanical manner and without appreciating the materials available on record. It is submitted that the petitioner is in continuous possession over the property since 1985 in own rights within the notice and knowledge of the O.P no.2 and the O.P. No.2 has got right and title over the property. It is submitted 3 that it is a case of civil dispute and even the petitioner has filed Title Suit No.435 of 2010 against the complainant for declaration of her right, title and interest over the property described in Schedule of the plaint and for temporary injunction and for other reliefs. It is submitted although it is a civil dispute, however, the petitioner has filed one Complaint Case No.47 of 2009 giving rise to institution of Sadar P.S. Case No.20 of 2009 (corresponding to G.R. Case no.417 of 2009). It is submitted that complaint has been filed after delay of 13 years from the date of execution of the sale deed executed in the year 1995-96. It is submitted that the complainant-O.P.No.2 Sri Raja Ram Singh was an Assistant Engineer in Bihar State Electricity Board at Ranchi and at that time, the said plot was purchased by him on 04.12.1984 and thereafter in the year 1985 the said Sri Raja Ram Singh had allowed Sri Suresh Prasad Singh to construct boundary wall and residential house with assurance that he will transfer the land in the name of the petitioner, due to which entire investment in purchase of the land, construction of boundary wall and residential house was in the knowledge of Sri Raja Ram Singh and thereafter the petitioner has been living in the said house with her family members since 1985. It is submitted that the land covered under R.S Khata no.132, Plot no.131, measuring an area of 7 Katthas and 8 Chhataks of village Tiril, P.S.Sadar, P.S. no.195, District Ranchi previously belongs to Smt. Nillie Rao, wife of Late Sri Krishna Rao. It is submitted that the said Smt. Nillie Rao under the registered deed of sale dated 04.12.1984 sold and transferred the aforesaid land to the opposite party no.2, Sri Raja Ram Singh, who acquired valid right, title and interest over the aforesaid plot of land. It is submitted that after the completion 4 of the construction work, Suresh Prasad Singh with the petitioner and his family members had started residing in the said house and during the said course she took electric connection in the house in her own name and also took telephone line and further did necessary repairing work time to time in the house and the opposite party no.2 had promised and committed to sell the house to the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that as per the commitment, the opposite party no.2 executed a Registered Deed of Sale of the aforesaid house and land fully described in the schedule by virtue of Registered Deed of Sale dated 19.12.1995 in favour of the petitioner and after selling the same the opposite party no.2 handed over all the original documents of the property to the petitioner. It is submitted that since the date of purchase the petitioner acquired a perfect right, title and interest over the property above said. Hence, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the Anchal Office in the Town Anchal, Ranchi and accordingly correction slip was issued in favour of the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that on the above facts and circumstances, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has the subsisting right, title, interest and possession over the property in question but in the meantime, the sister of Suresh Prasad Singh namely Ramuna Devi, who was the wife of opposite party no.2, had died in the year 1995 at the age of about 50 years and at that time the opposite party no.2 was posted at Patna and the unfortunate part is that she had no issue and after the death of the sister of Suresh Prasad Singh i.e. the O.P.No.2 get married with a girl namely Kiran Devi, aged about 22 years and lived with her peacefully at Patna. It is submitted that on account of the above fact, the contact of the petitioner with opposite party no.2 started reducing 5 gradually and the opposite party no.2 became keenly attached with the relations of 2nd wife and the opposite party no.2 completely ceased to have any connection with Ranchi. 7. It is further submitted that it is evident form the complaint that O.P.No.2 came to learned on 22.10.2008 that the alleged sale deed executed on 19.12.1995. It is further submitted that form perusal of the entire complaint case, it is evident that no case under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC is made out against the petitioner and hence the learned court below has mechanically rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned court below may be set aside in the interest of justice and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner in connivance with her husband namely Suresh Prasad Singh got executed four Sale Deed through one imposter in the garb of O.P.No.2 (i.e. the complainant) and the petitioner in connivance with her husband has cheated the O.P.No.2 and also got prepared forged and fabricated Registered Sale Deed dated 19.12.1995 and thus the petitioner has also committed the offence under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. It is submitted that petitioner has filed several frivolous petitions before the learned court below which has come in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also challenged the order taking cognizance by filing Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2015 by a 6 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) and the said order dated 04.02.2015 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has also been dismissed on 09.09.2016. It is further submitted that it is not a case of civil dispute rather this is a case of forgery and the petitioner has grabbed the land and house of the O.P.No.2 in connivance with her husband. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned court below is a well-reasoned order and the learned court below has discussed even the material of the case diary while passing the impugned order and as such this Revision Application may be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the O.P.No.2, after adopting the submission of learned APP, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and as such no interference is required form this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also preferred Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 which was dismissed on 04.02.2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that even the petitioner along with her husband Suresh Prasad Singh had earlier filed Cr.M.P No.1259 of 2010 for quashing the F.I.R of this case which was withdrawn on 12.01.2018 on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even the petitioner had moved before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 04.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013 which was dismissed on 09.09.2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. It is submitted that learned court below has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 239 Cr.P.C by perusing the materials mentioned in paragraph nos. 6, 10, 11, 12, 37, 59, 65, 70, 188, 330, 396, 615, 698, 699, 700, 701 and 765 of the case diary. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate 7 Bench of this Court has observed in Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013 that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory with respect to the handwriting identification on the original documents discloses that the signature on the sale deed also vary from the signature of the O.P.No.2. It is further submitted that even the Co-ordinate Bench has rejected the plea of civil dispute between the parties and as such the petitioner cannot take shelter of civil dispute. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner used to reside along with the complainant in his official quarter at Kusai Colony and after the transfer of the complainant to Nawada in the year 1985, the husband of the petitioner namely Suresh Prasad Singh was facing difficulties to remain in the official quarter and as such in the year 1986-87, the O.P.No.2 had constructed a house over the purchased land comprising of three rooms of Asbestos sheet, Kitchen and Varandah and also dug a well, the entire expenditure in the said construction was borne by the complainant i.e. O.P.No.2. 11. It is submitted that the O.P.No.2 has never committed to sell the property situated in R.S.Khata No.132, Plot no.131 measuring an area of 7 Kathas and 8 Chhataks to his brother-in- law Suresh Prasad Singh (i.e. the husband of the petitioner) and therefore did not make substantial contribution in construction of the building. It is submitted that from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory it is evident that the signature of the O.P.No.2 also vary from the signature on the sale deed dated 19.12.1995 which was registered on 16.01.1996 by the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. It is submitted that the O.P.No.2 came to learnt about the alleged sale deed in the year 2008 and thereafter the Panchayati was held between the parties but it could not succeed and as such the complaint case was filed and thereafter F.I.R was lodged by the 8 police against the petitioner and her husband. However, the police submitted charge sheet not only against the petitioner and her husband Suresh Prasad Singh but also against one another person namely Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh @ Ajay Kumar Keshri and Shekh Hafiz. It is submitted that mere institution of Title Suit no.435 of 2010 is not sufficient to discharge the petitioner her from the criminal case and as such this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 12. Perused the records of this Revision Application and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and considered the submissions of both the sides. 13. It transpires from the complaint case being Complaint Case No.47 of 2009 that the petitioner is the wife of one Suresh Prasad Singh and complainant was the own brother in-law of said Suresh Prasad Singh. 14. It appears from the F.I.R of Sadar P.S. Case no.20. of 2009 (arising out of Complaint Case No.47 of 2009) that petitioner and her husband got executed a Registered Sale Deed through an imposter in the name of the complainant Raja Ram Singh i.e. the O.P.No.2 and got prepared a forged sale deed dated 19.12.1995 which was registered on 16.01.1996 by the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi by setting some person as an imposter in the name of the complaintant-O.P.No.2. It has been stated that the property bearing land measuring an area of 7 Kathas and 8 Chhataks was purchased by the O.P.No.2 from one Smt. Nillie Rao, wife of Shankar Krishna Rao by Registered Sale Deed dated 04.12.1984 and thereafter he had constructed a house over the purchased land comprising of two Bed Rooms and one Kitchen and the roof was of Asbestos sheet and the boundary wall was also constructed. 15. It further appears that the police had submitted charge 9 sheet on 30.07.2012 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and her husband Suresh Prasad Singh and one Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh @ Ajay Kumar Keshri and one Shekh Hafiz before Smt. Vaishali Srivastava, J.M. Ist Class, Ranchi and accordingly cognizance was taken against the petitioner and other co-accused person under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC by the learned J.M. Ist Class, Ranchi. 16. It also transpires that in the meantime, the petitioner along with her husband had filed Title Suit No.435 of 2010 against the O.P.No.2 on 04.10.2010 for declaration of right, title and interest over the above said plot of area of 7 Kattha 8 Chhatak. 17. It further transpires from the pleadings of the petitioner made in this Revision Application that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 30.07.2012 as well as the entire criminal proceeding by filing Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 which was dismissed on 04.02.2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay). 18. Although the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the said order dated 04.02.2015 but the O.P.No.2 by filing his counter affidavit has enclosed the order dated 04.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 as Annexure-A and the operative portion of the order dated 04.02.2015 reads as under:- “ ……. The allegations in the present case cannot be said to be of such a nature so as to come within the parameters of a civil liability necessitating/availing of only civil remedies by the opposite party No.2. There has been specific allegation against the petitioners which has subsequently been proved by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and in such circumstance when there is an element of criminality into the allegations levelled against the petitioners this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not empowered to quash the entire criminal 10 proceedings. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 was with respect to the stay of a civil suit till the decision of a criminal case and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the said judgment is not at all applicable. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that no case is made out by the petitioners to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is, hereby dismissed.” 19. It further transpires from the pleading of the petitioner that she has challenged the order dated 04.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P No.2117 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 09.09.2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, neither the copy of the said order dated 09.09.2016 nor the case number filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been enclosed in this Criminal Revision Application by the petitioner and this amounts to suppression of material fact. 20. It further transpires that the petitioner along with her husband Suresh Prasad Singh has suppressed the fact of filing one another Cr.M.P.No.1259 of 2010 before the High Court of Jharkhand for quashing the F.I.R dated 31.01.2009 relating to Sadar P.S Case No.20 of 2009 which was withdrawn by the petitioner and others on 12.01.2018 and thus the petitioner is further guilty of suppressing this fact from this Court and on this g round alone, this Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed. 21. It further appears from the pleading of the parties that when the complainant learnt about the forged sale deed on 22.10.2008 then a Panchayati took place to settle the dispute of the property but it ended into failure. 22. Even this Court vide order dated 26.04.2023 had referred the case before the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA for mediation between the parties and this Court had desired that both the side may explore the possibility of settlement, however, the 11 Mediator, JHALSA has informed vide Letter No.JHALSA/1582 dated 12.05.2023 that the dispute of both the parties could not be settled. 23. From perusal of the impugned order it transpires that even one co-accused Ajay Kumar Singh has filed petition under section 306 Cr.P.C which was rejected on 13.03.2014 by the Predecessor court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi. 24. It further appears that even the petitioner along with her husband had filed discharge petition on 20.06.2013. 25. It further transpires from the impugned order that although the discharge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner but it was not pressed by them till the year 2018 and the court below has drawn adverse inference against the conduct of the defence side for delaying the proceeding of the case even after disposal of Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013 on 04.02.2015 and withdrawn of Cr.M.P.No.1259 of 2010. Thereafter the learned court below on the basis of materials available in the case diary at paragraph nos. 6, 10, 11, 12, 37, 59, 65, 70, 188, 330, 396, 615, 698, 699, 700, 701 and 765 has passed he impugned order by rejecting the discharge petition filed under section 239 Cr.P.C. 26. Although the copy of Forensic Science Laboratory report of the signature of the O.P.No.2 has neither been enclosed by the petitioner nor by the O.P.No.2, but from perusal of the order dated 04.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2117 of 2013, it reveals that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that when there is an element of criminality into the allegation levelled against the petitioner then the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C is not empowered to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Even the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the signature of the O.P. No.2 also varies. 12 27. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges meticulous examination of the statement of witnesses are not meticulously evaluated and there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and the trial court cannot hold mini trial. 28. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 29. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR 127 at Para-25 as follows: “Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression „hearing the submissions of the accused‟ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” 30. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:- “Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 13 31. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:- to consider “Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. Para-17.6:- The court has the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 32. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:- “Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion the accused, which has not been properly against explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be 14 weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 33. In view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court find that the present Criminal Revision filed on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any merit and accordingly, Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2018 is hereby dismissed but without costs. 34. The interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 05.12.2019 and the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by this Court stands vacated. Saket/ N.A.F.R. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)