Patna High Court - Orders
Rajeshwari Prasad Singh & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 April, 2013
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8407 of 2011
======================================================
1. Rajeshwari Prasad Singh son of late Krishna Kr. Singh, resident of
Ramjee Chak, Digha, PS-Digha, District-Patna.
2. Dhananjay Kumar son of Rajeshwari Pd. Singh, Jr. Consultant,
Cardiology, Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajhola Devi, wife of late Yogendra Pd. Singh, of Ramjee Chak, Digha,
PS-Digha, District-Patna.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s S.N.P. Sinha and
Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocates
Mr. Ansul, Adv., Mrs. Shikha Roy, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B.K.Sinha, Advocate
M/s K.C.K.Sinha and
D.N.Tiwary, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
14 24-04-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 8th March 2010 in connection with Complaint Case No. 362(c)/2010 by which Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna took cognizance for offence under sections 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Primarily allegation has been made in the complaint petition that the accused and the complainant constitute Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8407 of 2011 (14) dt.24-04-2013 2/5 a joint Mistakshra Hindu family. Later on they were separated in mess only and land in question having area of 2 acres 61-3/4 decimals situated at village-Ramjee Chak Digha was acquired by her by a settlement from ex-landlord. After death of her husband she started depending upon the accused persons for handling her property, as petitioner no. 1 is the brother of her husband whereas petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1.
4. It has been alleged that accused persons became dishonest and instead of looking after her property they were interested to grab her valuable property and tried to turn the same of their own.
5. It has been alleged, her son was working in the A.G. Office was not competent to handle the property and the legal matter of the property. It has been alleged that by conspiracy the accused persons created forged and fabricated Punchnama showing forged signature of her son and on that strength they have obtained the order of mutation in their favour and she could know about this Punchnama when some of the intending purchaser informed about the land converted by the petitioner to be their own property.
6. It has been stated in paragraph 15 of this petition that this fact came to light when accused persons gave certified Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8407 of 2011 (14) dt.24-04-2013 3/5 copy of the order to witness no. 2 as he approached him in connection with purchase of aforesaid land who in tern disclosed this fact to complainant.
7. The court below on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition, and on statements on oath took cognizance as aforesaid.
8. Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is basically a civil dispute and on the basis of said Punchnama the process of mutation was done and accordingly, the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 recorded in Register-II of the State of Bihar.
9. It has further been submitted that if they are aggrieved with the Punchnama, instead of filing of the present case the complainant was required to go for filing a civil suit so much so that mutation of the land was done on the basis of Punchnama so long order of mutation has been standing, petitioners cannot be labelled to have committed any offence.
10. It has further been submitted that the said Punchnama does not bear the signature of petitioner No. 2 who is renowned Doctor at Delhi, the allegations made against him are vague and omnibus and, as such, he has wrongly been added in complaint petition at least no offence is constituted against the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8407 of 2011 (14) dt.24-04-2013 4/5 petitioner No. 2.
11. However, the counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there is an allegation of creation of Punchnama by the process of forgery and the signature of son of complainant which is purported to have been standing in the Punchnama is completely forged and fabricated. He has further submitted that she could have filed a civil suit provided forged Punchnama was not created bearing forged signature of son of complainant. There is a specific allegation about the creation of forged and fabricated document of Punchnama and on that basis the order of mutation has been obtained.
12. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it is well known principle of law that if from the facts mentioned in the FIR or the complaint petition taken on its face value primarily shows a civil wrong, in that circumstance, the parties could have been directed for filing of the civil suit, as the civil wrong cannot be allowed to be adjudicated by criminal court but facts disclose commission of criminal offence, criminal proceeding will not be a bar. It will be relevant to rely on the judgment reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 99 and 2006 (6) SCC 736. As in this case specific allegation of creation Punchnama by fraudulent method has been made bearing forged signature of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8407 of 2011 (14) dt.24-04-2013 5/5 son of the complainant therein. Of course, this dispute is arising from the land dispute but the basis for setting criminal case in motion is Punchnama bearing forged signature of son of complainant as has been claimed.
13. This Court feels that the court below has not committed any illegality in order taking cognizance, as the statement made in the complaint petition do constitute the criminal offence.
14. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. However this order will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner and during the trial, they will at liberty to take all points before the court below including the order passed in the Mutation case as well as declaring 50% share in the disputed property.
15. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-