High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking to quash a summons. It held that civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously and a prima facie case for forgery and cheating was made out against the petitioners.
Prayer for quashing of summons was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51584 of 2006
=========================================================== 1.Rajiv Kumar Gupta @ Rajiv Kumar 2.Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Parmendar Prasad Gupta Both sons of Purendra Prasad Gupta, resident of village-Uda-Kishanganj, District- Madhepura. 3.Yadunandan Yadav S/O late Panchit Yadav, R/O vill.-Gorpar, P.S.-Uda Kishunganj, District-Madhepura
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar
2.Ravish Prasad S/O Jagdish Prasad, resident of village-Dighra, P.S.-Ghailarh, District-Madhepura
.... .... Opposite Party/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur Mr.Ravi Ranjan
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr.Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar-3 For the State: Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay..
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH CAV JUDGMENT
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.8.2006 passed in Cr. Revision No.53 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Madhepura whereby he has rejected the revision application of the petitioners against the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Sri R.Kumar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2005 whereby he summoned the petitioners in order to face trial.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
2.
the rent receipts were being issued in her name. From the land of the complainant the petitioners forcibly cut the standing Shisham trees. When the complainant raised protest the petitioner no.1 told the complainant that he has got the land in question transferred in his name through a forged registered sale deed and now she has no right over the land. The complainant subsequently on enquiry came to know that the accused persons in conspiracy to each other fraudulently prepared a fake power of attorney of the complainant in the name of co-accused Pankaj Kumar and on the strength of forged power of attorney two sale deeds being deed no.6459 of 2001 and deed no.6460 of 2001 were executed by co-accused Pankaj Kumar in favour of petitioner no.2 and 1 respectively. In both the deeds recitals were made that co-accused Pankaj Kumar was given power of attorney by the complainant. The complainant alleges that she had never executed any power of attorney in favour of Pankaj Kumar. It is relevant to note it here that the petitioners are none else but the nephews (brother’s son) of the complaint. The co-accused Pankaj Kumar is said to be a close agnate of the petitioners. The allegation is that all the accused persons were in know of the fact that the land in question, detail of which has been given in the plaint belongs to the complainant but in order to deprive her from ownership of the land they hatched up a conspiracy and co-accused Pankaj Kumar got the land transferred in the name of the petitioners.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
3.
executed a power of attorney in favour of co-accused Pankaj Kumar only after receiving consideration amount and on the basis of said power of attorney, coaccused Pankaj Kumar executed the two deeds in question dated7.11.2001 in favour of own nephews of the complainant namely, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Rajeev Kumar Gupta (the petitioners). After purchase of the said land, the same was mutated in the name of the purchasers and rent receipts are being issued in their name. It is further submitted that even as per the complaint no case is made out against the petitioners as they were bona fide purchasers and, as such, if the transaction made by co-accused Pankaj Kumar was fraudulent they would be victim and not the accused. Whether power of attorney in question was legal or valid can only be adjudicated in a proper civil proceeding and allowing the present prosecution to continue would he an abuse of the process of court.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
4.
criminal proceeding would be maintainable. They can run simultaneously. The result in one proceeding would not be binding on the court in another proceeding. He further submits that co-accused Pankaj Kumar who executed the sale deeds fraudulently was a man set up by the petitioners knowingly and deliberately. The complainant had never executed any power of attorney in his favour. The petitioners were aware of this fact still they conspired together and got the sale deed executed in their favour. I must now look to the provisions under which a prima facie case is said to have been made out.
“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 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.”
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
5.
offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating which reads as under.:-
“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 a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
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.”
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
6.
by the accused persons, they must be held to have committed the offence.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006
7.
has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Patna High Court, The 10th May, 2012 Md.S./AFR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously in a dispute regarding title to property.
Whether allegation of forgery and cheating attracts criminal liability even if the parties are related.
Whether the Learned Magistrate correctly summoned the petitioners to face trial based on the complaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and othersReferred¶44
(1999) 8 SCC 686 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajiv Kumar Gupta @ Rajiv Kumar
Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Parmendar Prasad Gupta
Yadunandan Yadav
The State Of Bihar
Ravish Prasad S/O Jagdish Prasad
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
