- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.308 of 2011 including the order dated 19.10.2012, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120[B], 467, 468, 471 /34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.
(2.) AS per the case of the complainant, the complainant entered into an agreement for selling a piece of land to the petitioner No.2 and thereby a deed of agreement to sell was executed, wherein one of the Clauses stipulated under the deed which has been mentioned in Para-3 reads as follows :- Clause 3 :- "That the Vendors will execute and register a proper deed in favour of the Purchaser or in favour of any person or persons, nominated by the Purchaser within a period of 11 months from the date of this agreement after permission from the competent authority". Further Clause which was there at Para-10 is as follows :- Clause-10 :- "That the Vendor with the assistance of the Purchaser shall get the necessary permission to sell from the competent authority, and if by one or more reasons permission be not granted then the time period of this agreement shall be extended by the Vendors, till the permission is granted". Further case of the complainant is that, the accused person in Para-3 added word "or" , on its addition it reads as follows :- Clause 3 :- "That the Vendors will execute and register a proper sale deed in favour of the Purchaser or in favour of any person or persons, nominated by the Purchaser within a period of 11 months from the date of this agreement "or" after permission from the competent authority". Since the word "or" was put in at Para-3 of the deed of agreement to sell, a complaint was lodged being C.P. Case No.308 of 2011, alleging therein the commission of offence of forgery, upon which cognizance of the offences was taken vide order dated 19.10.2012 which is under challenge in this application. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been denying that any word was added at Para-3 and even if it is accepted that the word "or" has been put in at Para-3, it never makes any difference, if this clause is read together with the Clause 10 and if it does not make any difference, no criminality can be attached to the petitioners and thereby, the Court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. However, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite Party No.2 submits that by putting word "or", period of the agreement which happens to be the essence of any agreement has been extended and this will further get clarify if the statement made in Para-10 is read along with the statement made in Para-3.
(3.) IN this regard, it was submitted that what had been stipulated under Clause 3 is that within 11 months, sale deed was to be executed and at the same time, permission should have been obtained and if the permission could not have been obtained then in that situation, the statement which has been there in Para-10 could have taken care of, but by putting word "or" in Clause-3 that period has been extended by the petitioners in order to derive benefit and thereby, the petitioners can certainly be said to have committed offence of forgery. Regard being had to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, I do not agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that by putting word "or" in Para-3, the petitioners would not be getting any benefit out of it and that the petitioners would not derive any benefit rather it is otherwise as by putting the word "or" the period as stipulated under Clause 3 gets extended.;