Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pram Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2018
1 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
(SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA)
M. Cri. C. No. 10728 / 2012
Prem Singh Chouhan
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1 / State.
None for respondent no. 2 / complainant.
Whether approved for reporting : (Yes / No).
ORDER
(Delivered on 22nd day of March, 2018) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the charge sheet pending before the court of J.M.F.C., Katni for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC arising out of the FIR registered at crime no.198/2008 in Police Station Rithi, District Katni so far as it relates to petitioner Prem Singh Chouhan.
2. Facts of the case in narrow compass are that on 5.10.2008 respondent no. 2 Rajkaran lodged a FIR at Police Station Rithi, District Katni to the effect that he is the owner of the land bearing khasra no.417, admeasuring 5.08 Hectare, situated in village Khamhariya, Tahsil Rithi, District Katni. In the year 2008 he contacted the Patwari concerned and the Patwari informed him that his land has been got mutated in the name of D. S. Green Agrotech Private Ltd. New Delhi on the basis of the sale deed alleged to have been executed by him then he applied for certified copy of the registered sale deed and it revealed that in place of him, other person by impersonation executed the sale deed of his land in favour of the aforesaid Company, in which, the 2 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012 petitioner has signed as a power of attorney holder as Purchaser. The complainant / respondent no.2 has neither executed the sale deed nor received any consideration. He has been cheated by committing fraud. On the basis of the written complaint made by respondent no. 2 / complainant, aforesaid crime was registered. During the investigation, it was found that respondent no. 2 has not executed the sale deed and the petitioner on behalf of the company has got the sale deed executed by impersonation with the connivance of other co-accused persons and thereafter, the land was mutated in the name of the company with the connivance of the revenue officers. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner as well as other co-accused persons.
3. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid charge sheet on the grounds that being a representative of the Company, he acted bona fidely and purchased the said land through local broker after giving due consideration. The Head office of the company is in Delhi and the petitioner also resides in Delhi. He was not aware of the people and the area of Katni. He purchased the land for the object of the company with the help of local people without having knowledge about the fraud committed by the middleman. The petitioner has also made a complaint to the police about cheating or forgery with the company by one Ramesh Shukla who acted as a broker or helper in the aforesaid transaction and other persons who were the members of his team but the police has not enquired into the matter in the light of his complaint. In the transaction, Ramesh Shukla and the members of his team presented the person as owner of the land and got the sale deed executed after taking due consideration. The police have not made fair investigation to find out the correctness and actual culprit. Apparently whole investigation is tainted, unfair, partisaned and requires direction to conduct fair investigation.
3 M.Cr.C.No.10728/20124. On behalf of the petitioner, it has also been submitted that looking to the averments of the FIR and material available in the charge sheet, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He has not induced or misrepresented the complainant with a view to deliver his property to him or to do any such act in favour of the company, in other words, there is no averment with regard to commission of offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Similarly, there is no allegation that the petitioner has impersonated the complainant / respondent no. 2. Hence, no offence of cheating is made out. So far as the offence of forgery is concerned, there is also no ingredient about the commission of offence of forgery as there is no averment or material on record to establish the fact that the petitioner dishonestly or fraudulently got the sale deed executed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or signed or executed. There is no iota of material to show that he knowing the fact that the person who executed the sale deed as a seller was not the real owner which is an essential ingredient of making a false document to come in purview of forged document. Hence, so far as the petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that being a signatory of the sale deed as a power of attorney holder of the company he prepares forged sale deed then there is no question of commission of offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. In the circumstances he cannot be prosecuted on the basis of charge sheet in the aforesaid offence. If on the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet his prosecution is continued it will amount to misuse of process of the court and also cause great injustice. Hence, charge sheet be quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that from the charge sheet, prima facie, commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner is made out. Prima facie the company is beneficiary of the sale deed executed by 4 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012 impersonation and the petitioner has acted as a representative of the company. The petitioner is responsible for the fraud committed in the transaction. Hence, the petition be dismissed.
6. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record and the documents submitted by the petitioner it appears that when the petitioner contacted the local people of the area and with the help of them, the lands of so many persons were purchased for company. The petitioner has never met the seller personally including respondent no. 2 / complainant except at the time of execution of the sale deed. There is no controversy that respondent no. 2 did not execute the sale deed concerned and the sale deed was executed by impersonation in place of respondent no. 2. There is no evidence that the amount which was withdrawn from the account of the company was not paid in lieu of purchasing the land nor the company made complaint about the fact that after withdrawing the amount, it was misappropriated by the petitioner and there is no evidence that the amount was not paid to the person who committed impersonation in place of respondent no.2. From the evidence it also appears that the petitioner resides in Delhi and he had no personal knowledge about the real person who was the owner of the land. In the circumstances, no offence under Sections 420 or 419 of the IPC is made out. Similarly, there is no material to establish the fact that the petitioner knowing the fact that the person who executed the sale deed as a seller was not the real owner and respondent no. 2 was the real owner, in other words, it cannot be said that he knowing that respondent no. 2 is the real owner of the land of which sale deed has been executed by other person by impersonation which is an essential requirement for committing offence of forgery.
5 M.Cr.C.No.10728/20127. Here it would be appropriate to see the provisions related to the offences under Sections 415, 416, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC which read as under :-
415.Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
416. Cheating by personation .- A person is said to "cheat by personation " if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.6 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012
463. Forgery.-- [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
464. Making a false document. -- [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--
First --Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic 342 record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or 7 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012 Secondly --Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly --Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his 342 [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be 8 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012 punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471.-Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
7. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, in this case without hesitation it can be said that prima facie there is no material in the charge sheet to prosecute the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the light of the law laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335; the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of process of the court. Hence, the petition is allowed and the charge sheet pending before the court of J.M.F.C., Katni for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. Sec. 34 of 9 M.Cr.C.No.10728/2012 the IPC arising out of the FIR registered at crime no.198/2008 in Police Station Rithi, District Katni and further proceeding pending as S.T. No.47/2009 so far as it relates to petitioner Prem Singh Chouhan are quashed.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below for information and necessary compliance.
(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE JP/-
Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2018.03.23 17:48:09 +05'30'