- (1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by S.D.J.M., Chatra by which cognizance was taken under Section 468/120 -B, IPC in Complaint Case No. 177 of 2002.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this application are that the father of the complainant had three brothers, namely, Ram Kumar Singh, Ram Nagina Singh and Bish -wanath Singh and their father 'sname was Late Deoki Singh. The name of Deoki Singh was entered in Khata Nos. 1, 7, 3, 10 and 19 in Survey Khatian. The second son of Late Deoki Singh was Ram Nagina Singh who had only one son, Mushan Singh alias Dinanath Singh who died issueless in the year 1975. The entire acquired property of the grant father of the complainant was distributed among the uncles and after the death of his uncle, Ram Nagina Singh and thereafter the death of Mushan Singh alias Dinanath Singh Son of Late Ram Nagina Singh, who died issueless in the year, 1975. All the properties of grand father of complainant were inherited by Shreenath Singh and two other uncles, Ram Kumar Singh and Bishwanath Singh. There was an oral partition in between the father and uncles of the complainant and according to that oral partition, complainant and other sons of his uncles are doing cultivation work. It is alleged that on 26.7.2002 the complainant went with his labourers for ploughing the land over plot No. 4, area 1.70 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 7 of village Khapia then accused persons and two others reached there and scolded them and intimated to them that 1.69 decimals of land of plot No. 4 of village Khapia has been purchased by him from issueless brother, Mushan Singh on 18.5.1977 through registered deed No. 5212/77 and as per that sale deed, Anirudh Singh and Ramanand Singh had right, title and possession and complainant has got no right, title and possession and he was forbidden from doing any cultivation work on that land. The complainant was shocked to hear because complainant and all concerned persons were aware of the fact that cousins of complainant who were entitled to 1/4th share of grand father (died issueless) and entire property vested with complainant and two uncles of the complainant. Complainant went to Chatra Court in the year, 2002 and inquired whether Mushan Singh alias Dinanath Singh had executed any deed in the year, 1977 in favour of Anirudh Singh and Rama Nand Singh but he got information that papers are not available in Chatra registry office and he went to Hazaribagh on 28.7.2002 and inquired about sale deed and found the same to be correct and he obtained certified copy of the sale deed No. 5212, dated 18.5.1977 on 29.7.2002. He was further shocked to find that in the sale deed the complainant has put his signature as identifier. He was further shocked that when Mushan Singh died in the year, 1975, how could he execute the sale deed in the year, 1977 and he suspects that some body has setup any one as Mushan Singh and got sale deed executed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the instant case is a case of civil nature as it relates to the fact that when Mushan Singh died in the year, 1975, how could he execute sale deed in the year, 1977 and further that when the complainant has put his signature as identifier and he is now denying about his signature, this fact has to be decided by examination of evidence and similarly this is a matter of record whether Mushan Singh alias Dinanath Singh died in the year, 1975 or not and whether he was alive in the year, 1977 or not and, therefore, no case under Sections 468 and 420, IPC is made out because the complainant is himself full brother of the petitioners and the alleged disputes are regarding the share of Late Mushan Singh, as Mushan Singh was own uncle of the complainant as well as of the accused persons. The complaint petition has been filed after a long delay as sale deed was executed in the year, 1977 in which this complainant was also a witness and now he is denying his signature. It was further pointed out that this nature of dispute cannot be decided in the criminal Court because till date the sale deed is in existence and is not cancelled by a competent Court of jurisdiction, no case against the petitioner is made out. This question can only be adjudicated by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of evidence. As the civil Court is only place where it can be decided whether the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by Mushan Singh is genuine or not or it is forged one and this criminal case is not at all maintainable. It was further pointed out that continuance of the case would be an abuse of the process of the Court. It was further pointed out that it has not been alleged in the complaint petition as who were ploughing the land of the share of Mushan Singh after his alleged death in the year, 1975 but the case is that in the year, 2002 when complainant and his brother went to plough the land, some objections were raised by Anirudh Singh and Rama Nand Singh and by that occurrence, the complainant has tried to buildup a false case because the land must have been ploughed from 1975 to 2001, till before the alleged date of occurrence.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the learned Court below held inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC and found prima facie case and took cognizance on the basis of the evidence which has come in course of inquiry. In this connection, learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance upon AIR 1985 SC 628, in which when a woman enters the matrimonial home, the ownership of stridhan property does not become joint with her husband or his relations and criminal proceeding for its misappropriation against husband or inlaws is maintainable and it cannot be quashed under Section 482, Cr PC. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon 2000(3) BLJ 335, wherein it has been held that complaint petition cannot be quashed merely on the grounds that civil remedy is available to the complainant.;