IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45307 of 2007 UMA SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SARYUG SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BARA, P.S. UDA KISHANGAN, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. MILU DEVI, WIFE OF PAWANDEO SINGH 3. SMT. SUNAINA DEVI WIFE OF SANJEEV KUMAR SUMAN 4. BALBHADRA SINGH, SON OF KISHUN SINGH 5. VASUKI KUMAR, SON OF VISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH 6. ARJUN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF VINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH 7. PAWANDEO SINGH, SON OF BLABHADRA SINGH 8. SANJEEV KUMAR SUMAN, SON OF BALBHADRA PRASAD SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BARA, P.S. UDA KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner : Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj For opp.party 2 to 8 :Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma & : Mr. Arun Kumar Lal For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ----------- 03. 19.03.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner-complainant of Complaint Case No.1091 of 2005 has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 10.07.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Criminal Revision No.135 of 2006 (Pawandeo Singh & Ors. Vs.State). The revisional court has interfered with the order taking cognizance dated 25.08.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,1st Class, Madhepura. The petitioner herein lodged a complaint in the year 2005 alleging therein that his father Late Saryug Singh and the father of the accused namely, Kishun Singh were related to each other. They jointly purchased certain piece of lands which were jointly recorded in the names of Late Saryug Singh and Late Kishun Singh each having ½ share. - 2 - It is the complainant‟s case that his father fell seriously ill and he was taken to Madhya Pradesh where the complainant was employed. He lived there till his death, i.e. 8.6.2002. Subsequently, it was revealed to him that the accused persons had got executed and registered four sale-deeds, all dated 21.12.2001, allegedly executed by his father. This prompted him to file the complaint. There is no dispute between the parties that in the year 2005 itself the complainant lodged a title suit being Title Suit No. 202/05 (Uma Shankar Singh Vs. Smt. Nilu Devi & Ors.) in the court of Sub-Judge, Madhepura seeking, inter alia, the following relief(s): 1. That the title of the plaintiff on the disputed lands be declared. 2. That the registered sale-deeds bearing no. 7031,7032, 7033 and 7034, all dated 21.12.2001, be declared as forged and fabricated. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has produced a copy of the plaint which is on the record marked as „Y‟. This Court finds from the pleadings made therein that the complainant-plaintiff has founded the case on the same facts. This would appear from the pleadings incorporated at paragraphs 8,9,10 & 11 of the plaint. During enquiry, the complainant adduced evidence of three witnesses. The learned Magistrate took cognizance under sections 467 and 468/34 IPC recording therein that there is sufficient ground(s) on record for proceeding against the accused(s). - 3 - As noted above, the accused persons preferred a revision which was considered and disposed of by the impugned order. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order read thus: “4. It was submitted by the learned lawyer of the petitioners that there is no legal evidence available on the record to show the commission of forgery as alleged by the complainant and moreover regarding the disputed land title suit is pending and this fact has been admitted by C.W.1 in his evidence taken in enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. “5. I perused the impugned order as well as the evidence of the complainant and all the three witnesses examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C.. They have admitted that they have not seen the execution of the sale-deeds and they could not say as to who was being impersonated in place of late Saryug Singh, father of the complainant. The four disputed saledeeds are the registered sale- deeds said to be executed on 21.12.2001 and at that time admittedly late Saryug Singh, father of the complainant, was alive. According to the complainant, Saryug Singh died on 08.06.02. The present complaint was filed on 20.12.2005, i.e. after lapse of four years. This long delay in filing complaint appears not to be reasonably or satisfactorily explained by the complainant in his examination on S.A. The witnesses have simply stated that the father of the complainant was living in Madhaya Pradesh and only on this ground they are saying that the disputed deeds are forged and fabricated deeds. The complainant has not claimed to have compared and examined the L.T.Is. and signatures of the disputed deeds of his father by any expert. Only the witnesses examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. have only suspected the deeds to be forged and fabricated. But admittedly all the four disputed deeds are the registered deeds and under the Registration Act the presumption of a registered deed is of genuineness unless it is proved to be forged and fabricated. It has also come on the record that a title suit is pending in respect of the disputed sale-deed. The complainant was residing in Madhya Pradesh where he was in service. He claims to have cultivated the lands through Bataidar. There is no any evidence of any witness that he had seen impersonating some one in place - 4 - of father of the complainant for execution of the registration of four sale-deeds.” The parties are admittedly related to each other. The complainant filed the title suit for the relief(s) on the foundational facts as already taken note of hereinabove. Not satisfied with the civil litigation, he also filed a complaint. During enquiry, the witnesses have admitted that the suit between the parties is already pending. In this background, the learned revisional court has evaluated the materials on record of the case and has come to a conclusion that there is no legal evidence on record justifying the order taking cognizance of the offence. The order taking cognizance is a sensitive exercise of the jurisdiction. Law is settled that a criminal proceeding should not be resorted to for oblique/ulterior reason(s). The process of the court cannot be allowed to be used as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Having considered the submissions of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the ends of justice do not call for any interference. The application is accordingly dismissed hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )