Raj Narayan Singh & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Anr. on 23 July, 2013

[Cites 7, Cited by 496]

Patna High Court - Orders

Raj Narayan Singh & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Anr. on 23 July, 2013

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Gaurichak P. S. Case No. 74/2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 458 of 2010 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that his uncle Sitaram Singh purchased plot nos. 2456, 2457, 2458, 2483, 2484 and 2485 from one Lagan Brat Kunwar and came in possession over the above plots since execution of the deed. Certain Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6790 of 2011 (7) dt.23-07-2013 2 clarification is there on his behalf that some mistake was committed in not scribing plot nos. 2483, 2484 and 2485, according to the complainant, for these three plots, plot no. 2460 is mentioned in the deed.

For accused persons, it is said that on instigation of petitioner nos. 5 and 6, petitioner nos. 1 to 4 intended to dispossess complainant from plot nos. 2483, 2484 and 2485. Further it is alleged that they succeeded to mutate names of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 in the revenue record which was challenged and litigation is going on. Ultimately, it is said that complainant and his brother filed T.S. no. 189/07 for declaration of plot nos. 2483, 2484 and 2485 in their favour.

It is further alleged that written statement was filed on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 supported with a memorandum of partition dated 15.11.1973 and a compromise dated 16.5.1976. Both deeds are alleged forged giving reasoning that a partition suit was filed by members of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 in which there was no mention about these deeds and another ground is that complainant got compared several signatures and thumb impression of both deeds with some admissible documents and it appeared that signature and thumb impressions were not tallying.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6790 of 2011 (7) dt.23-07-2013 3

On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that complainant's uncle was the real purchaser, property was sold by Lagan Brat Kunwar. Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 are heirs of the family and property to the extent effected by deed can support the family members of complainant only.

It is admitted case of the parties that plot nos. 2483, 2484 and 2485 are not mentioned in the deed rather 2460 is only mentioned. Another point raised by the complainant is to the effect that he is claiming 56 decimals of land but discrepancy is shown by him in area of plot no. 2456 in the deed, its area is given 21 decimals and complainant is claiming its area to be 14 decimals. This much goes to show that for admitting area claimed by the complainant including area of plot nos. 2483, 2484 and 2485 there would appear discrepancy of 7 decimals. So, much of the variation from the deed alleged reality cannot be accepted.

Next relevant point in this case is that vendee and vendor of the deed are dead. Complainant's uncle Sitaram Singh never objected area of any plot or mentioning wrong number.

It is specifically submitted on behalf of petitioners that to cast pressure only this F.I.R. is lodged. It can be said by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6790 of 2011 (7) dt.23-07-2013 4 non-concerned person having only created interest in plot nos. 2483, 2484 and 2485, in my view, also may not be made ground for accusation prima facie.

In the discussed facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 passed in Gaurichak P. S. Case No. 74/2010 is hereby quashed.

(Mandhata Singh, J) A.I./N.A.F.R.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders