Dismissed

Paresh Dutta v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC22 Oct 2019Crl.Pet./859/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a criminal complaint for forgery, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the plea. The bench held that the petitioner, who identified sellers on a forged sale deed, could not escape liability. A prima facie case existed, making it unfit to interfere with the taking of cognizance by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the petition for quashing the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Paresh Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010175692019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 859/2019

¶5

1:PARESH DUTTA

¶6

S/O. LT. DEBEN DUTTA, VILL. AND P.O. GUWAKUCHI, MOUZA- KHATA, P.S. NALBARI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY PP, ASSAM.

¶9

2:HEMCHANDRA SARMA S/O. BRAJA NATH SARMA R/O. ASSAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE CAMPUS PWD CHOWK JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-13 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 22-10-2019

¶15

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. State of Assam is a formal party.

¶16

The petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as opposite party in C.R. Case No. 60/2019, preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said complaint case on the

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

ground that he was not associated with the offence alleged. The petitioner is working as an Assistant to Lat Mondal under the Circle Officer, Nalbari.

¶19

As per the complaint petition, the accused persons total 6 in numbers in collusion with and in conspiracy within themselves manufactured a registered Sale Deed No. 2501/03 dated 5.8.2003 by forging the signature of the complainant showing the land of Schedule-B as sold out to the defendant and his 3 brothers. In the process, the accused persons, namely, Pramod Barman, Harendra Das and the present petitioner have identified the executants of the Sale Deed. The said deed was registered without obtaining requisite permission from the concerned authority and with the help of the accused persons. The accused persons got their names mutated in the revenue record through Circle Officer. It is stated that the complainant came to know all about the matter when he went to the Circle Office on 20.03.2012 and he applied for the certified copy of the Sale Deed. It is the case of the complainant that they never executed any such Sale Deed in favour of those accused persons.

¶20

In this context, the complainant and his brothers have filed a civil suit bearing Title Suit No.121/2012 against the accused persons praying for declaration and other consequential reliefs and the suit was decreed in favour of the complainant on 12.03.2019 whereby the court has declared the aforesaid Sale Deed No.2501/03 dated 5.8.2003 as forged, illegal and null and void. Subsequent to the said order of the civil court, the complaint was filed.

¶21

Now, the contention raised by the petitioner is that he has no role in the entire sale process, save and except he identified those sellers in the course of proceeding and he is not the author of the forged Sale Deed in question and as such, he cannot be booked with the criminal offence under Sections 468/471 of IPC.

¶22

Considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the documents annexed. A copy of the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in Title Suit No.121/2012 is also annexed, which bears the elaborate discussion as to the role played by each of the accused persons (defendants therein) including the present petitioner. The court was of the opinion that in view of the challenge made by the plaintiff (present respondent No.2) that the documents were forged but the defendants did not come forward to rebut the said allegation by adducing proper evidence, as the FSL report also supported that signatures on the documents in the said Sale Deed as forged one, wherein the present accused-petitioner identified those sellers to the Sale Deed, who were non-existent at the time of execution of the said Sale Deed. The role of the present petitioner was held to facilitate execution of such forged document before the authority concerned and on his identification

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

the entire deed was executed in the Sub-Registrar’s office. It can be seen that the entire document was found to be forged and fabricated one. Thus the present petitioner cannot escape himself from his liability as he identified those sellers. The ingredients of Section 471 will be attracted since the aforesaid document is attempted to use as a genuine one with such false identification.

¶25

In view of the matters on record, a prima facie case is made out against the present accusedpetitioner for taking cognizance and, as such, there appears no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court while taking cognizance of the case under Sections 468/471 IPC.

¶26

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere into the entire matter by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Needless to say that power and scope of court to exercise such extra-ordinary jurisdiction comes into play only when there is abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, on the basis of records, the complicity of the accusedpetitioner cannot be denied which will be decided by the learned trial court in due course of trial.

¶27

Refusing to grant relief as sought for, this petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

milansinha

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Paresh Dutta v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Dutta v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angsuman Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sri Son Sing Teron Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S Gupta Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Munish Motilal Pariyani Vs Ritisha Munish Bariyani @ Inky Gurbani

Ujjal Konwar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Baneswar Subedar and 3 Ors. Vs Smt. Monima Saikia and Anr.