Bigan Singh & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

A challenge has been made to the order taking cognizance dated 04.07.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Aurangabad whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons (i.e. 25 in numbers) in complaint case No. 388 of 2014. Out of 25 accused persons, 7 of them have approached this Court for quashing the order taking cognizance in the instant application.

The instant complaint was filed on 21.05.2014 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad naming 25 persons as accused alleging inter alia therein that the complainant has several pieces of land ranging from 2 kattahs to 13 kattahs and odd in the Village - Lahiyarpur, PS - Mali, in the District of Aurangabad. All the accused persons in connivance created forged, fabricated deed with respect to the aforesaid ancestral land of complainant and on that very basis, all the accused persons as named, started claiming their title over the ancestral land of complainant from 20.06.2013. Sensing the mal-intention of the accused persons, who are bent upon to grab his land, the complainant first approached the local police station, but, seeing their reluctance and indifference, he was compelled to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by filing the complaint application.

The instant complaint was registered as complaint case No. 388 of 2014 wherein solemn affirmation of complainant was recorded on 09.06.2014, whereafter statement of inquiry witnesses namely Satyendra Yadav, Rinku Yadav, Basant Yadav and Udit Singh were recorded in course of inquiry and thereafter learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class finding prima facie case under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, issued process against all the accused persons including the petitioners for their appearance to face trial.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submits that the allegations as levelled in the complaint application shows that disputes were purely civil in nature with respect to claiming and counter claiming their right, title and possession over the various pieces of land as detailed in paragraph no. 1 of the complaint application. He further submits that the bare perusal of the complaint case does not make out any offence under the Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as the allegations are quite vague, unspecific and without furnishing any details of the alleged deed so prepared by the petitioners in order to claim their right, title and possession over the ancestral land of the complainant as alleged.

He also averred that none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, as nothing specific has been alleged against each of the accused persons including the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners are claiming their right, title and possession over the aforesaid piece of land on the basis of registered sale deed executed in their favour by the ancestors of the complainant, which the complainant alleges to be forged and fabricated. The civil nature of dispute is very much evident from the fact that prior to filing of the instant complaint case, the complainant has already instituted a title suit vide Title Suit No. 182 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aurangabad wherein all the petitioners including the other accused persons have been arrayed as defendants. The aforesaid title suit was filed on 23.04.2014, i.e. almost a month prior to the filing of the instant complaint case which was filed on 21.05.2014. Thus, he submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class without applying his judicial mind in the mechanical manner, took cognizance of offences which is bad in law and on facts as well and as such, the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2016, whereby cognizance of the offences have been taken against the petitioners, is fit to be set aside.

In support of his contention learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relies upon some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telengana and Anr. reported in (2023) 2 SCC 195.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 vehemently contests and contradicts the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that in order to grab the land of the complainant, the petitioners conceived a plan and in furtherance thereof, they prepared a false sale deed and started claiming their title and possession over the ancestral land of complainant and only on account of best efforts and resistance so put up by the complainant, the accused persons could not take possession of his ancestral land. However, the nefarious activities and conduct of the accused persons have given a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant, of his land being grabbed and in order to achieve that goal, the accused persons may resort to violence and cause damage to the life and property of the complainant. He also submits that in course of inquiry, the complainant has fully supported the accusations against the accused persons as named in the complaint, including the petitioners and the witnesses who deposed as inquiry witnesses, have also fully supported the allegations.

Perusal of the documents, statement of inquiry witnesses and solemn affirmation of the complainant does not leave an iota of doubt that it was the petitioners and other accused persons as named in the complaint application, who were making an all out effort to grab the land of the complainant on the basis of false and fabricated sale deed, which is a nullity in the eyes of law.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the learned trial Court having applied his judicial mind, has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused persons and so the accused persons may be relegated to the trial Court to face the trial for the offence so committed by them.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the complaint application as well as the solemn affirmation of complainant and statement of inquiry witnesses so recorded in course of inquiry by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The averments made in the complaint application reflect that the complainant being grand-son of Late Akaloo Gope who was said to be the descendant of Deepa Gope, has their ancestral land vide different plot numbers of the Village - Lahiyarpur, P.S. - Mali, in the district of Aurangabad. Without giving any specific details of the sale deed which was alleged to have been prepared by the accused persons with respect to the sale of the aforesaid ancestral land of the complainant, he has attributed allegation against the accused persons so named in the complaint petition. In the complaint application, no allegation has specifically been attributed to each of the persons, rather a vague, omnibus and sweeping allegations of quite a general nature has been attributed to all the petitioners.

It is also evident that this complaint case was filed on 21.05.2014 and almost a month prior to the instant complaint case, a title suit has been preferred on 23.04.2014 by the complainant, namely, Vijay Prasad Singh in the Court of learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aurangabad vide Title Suit No. 182 of 2014 arraying the petitioners and other accused persons as party defendants, with a prayer to declare the title of the complainant (plaintiff) on the land as mentioned in the complaint as well as also for declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners to be void ab initio.

In the background of the factual conspectus as detailed hereinabove, it is manifestly evident that there is a dispute with respect to the title and possession over the land as detailed in complaint application for which a title suit is already pending in the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.

At this stage, it is germane to consider the ingredients of Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad.

The basic and essential ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are :-

Thus, to constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property or to make or alter or destroy wholly and in part a valuable security.

In the aforesaid connection, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid down in Prof. R. K. Vijayasarathy and Anr. vs. Sudha Seetharam and Anr. as reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739; A. M. Mohan vs. State represented by SHO and Anr. as reported in (2024) 12 SCC 181; Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab and Anr. as reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360 cases are of significant importance, wherein the ingredients and parameters within which the offence of cheating could be made out has decisively been laid down.

Having considered the same, in the case at hand, no offence of cheating could be said to be made out against the petitioners, as there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement of any person so deceived by the accused persons and the persons who claim to have been deceived, has been induced to deliver any property to the accused persons. None of the ingredients of the offence of cheating as defined under Sections 415 and 420 are satisfied in this case against the petitioners and as such, no offence could be held to be made out against them for the aforesaid offence alleged to have been committed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

So far as the allegations with respect to offences as defined under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is apposite to note that to attract offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish that accused made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code with an intent to cheat. Likewise, Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code requires proof that accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use.

In the case at hand, no such details of any document has been furnished by the complainant in order to support and substantiate the allegations for the offences so committed by the petitioners under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Save and accept all the bald and sweeping allegations as made in the compliant application, no document has been appended thereto, to evince the culpability of the petitioners who alleged to have made a forged document with an intent to cheat.

The facts in the present case, indisputably demonstrate that the entire idea appears to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one by the complainant in order to put pressure on the accused persons, to retract from their claim over the land which they are claiming on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in their favour by the ancestors of the complainant.

It is a settled law that the Criminal Courts are not meant to be used to settle scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. Allowing such criminal proceeding to continue would be the abuse and misuse of the process of the judicial proceedings of the Courts and as such, impugned order dated 04.07.2016 passed in complaint case No. 388 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad whereby the cognizance of offences have been taken under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not only bad but also untenable in the eyes of law and as such, is hereby accordingly, set aside and quashed qua the petitioners only.

All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed off.