Rama Devi vs State Of Bihar & Ors

2

3. The Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar Sinha,

filed a Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 against

the Appellant alleging that she had committed

offences under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 120-B

of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by executing a

Deed of Sale in his favour, on 12th February,

2005, in respect of a plot of land measuring 1

Katha 5 Dhurs, pertaining to Survey No.235 in

Khata No.3 of Mauza Dhelwan under Phulwarisharif

P.S., District Patna, Bihar. According to the

complainant, the boundary wall erected by him

around the said plot was demolished and on

inquiry, he came to know that one Prabhu Singh,

who had sold the land to the Appellant was the

full brother of one Sita Ram Singh, who had

earlier sold the entire area of Survey plot

No.235 to different persons at different points

of time by different sale deeds. The complainant

alleged that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant's vendor

and brother of Sita Ram Singh, had acted as an 3

attesting witness in the said Sale Deeds executed

by Sita Ram Singh, which indicated that inspite

of having knowledge that Sita Ram Singh had sold

the lands in question to others, Rama Devi

purchased the said lands and in order to cheat

the complainant, executed the Sale Deed in his

favour on 12th February, 2005.

4. On 28th February, 2006, the Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance of

the alleged offences and issued process only

against the Appellant herein. Aggrieved thereby,

the Appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No.19975 of 2006 before the Patna High

Court on 10th May, 2006, for quashing the

cognizance taken as also the entire proceedings

in Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 pending before

the said Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Patna. On 20th December, 2006, the Patna High

Court dismissed the Appellant's aforesaid

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is the 4

subject matter of challenge in the present

appeal.

5. On behalf of the Appellant it was pointed out

by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Advocate,

that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance

of the offences complained of on an erroneous

appreciation of the material before him to the

effect that it was not disputed that the property

in question had earlier been sold by Sita Ram

Singh, who was the brother of the Appellant's

vendor, and that the Appellant had attested the

said Sale Deed, which clearly indicated that the

Appellant had knowledge of the earlier sale and

despite the same, had not only executed the Sale

Deed in favour of the complainant but had also

indicated that no other deed had been executed in

respect of the property which were free from all

encumbrances. Mr. Rai referred to the Sale Deeds

which had been referred to by the learned

Magistrate, from which it would be apparent that 5

the Appellant was not an attesting witness to any

of the sale deeds. Mr. Rai also referred to the

Sale Deed executed by the Appellant in favour of

the complainant to show that Prabhu Singh was not

an attesting witness in the said document either

and the witnesses were : (1) Kedar Prasad Singh,

(2) Nawal Kisahore and (3) Awadhesh Kumar.

6. Mr. Rai submitted that since the very basis

for the cognizance taken by the learned

Magistrate was fallacious and without any

foundation, the High Court erred in dismissing

the Appellant's application under Section 482

Cr.P.C. and that the cognizance taken by the

learned Magistrate, as also the proceedings

relating to the Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005,

were liable to be quashed.

7. Mr. Rai's submissions were strongly opposed

on behalf of the Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar

Sinha. It was submitted that no case had been

made out on behalf of the Appellant for 6

interference with the order of the High Court

impugned in this appeal. Mr. P.S. Mishra,

learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Respondent No.2, reiterated the submissions which

were made before the High Court to the effect

that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant's vendor, and

his brother Sita Ram Singh had in conspiracy with

each other sold away the entire lands comprising

Survey Plot No.235 and that the Appellant was

also a party to such conspiracy. Mr. Mishra urged

that despite being part of the conspiracy, the

Appellant got Prabhu Singh to transfer the land

in question to her and got her name mutated in

the concerned jamabandi, which would be apparent

from the inquiry report of the application for

mutation of Case No.650/7 Year 2001-02 Hulka No.7

dated 5th March, 2002. From the said report, it

would be crystal clear that the names of both

Sita Ram Singh and Rama Devi were shown in the

column for recording the name of the raiyat in

respect of the jamabandi. Mr. Mishra submitted 7

that the same would indicate a deep-rooted

conspiracy hatched by the said Sita Ram Singh and

his brother Prabhu Singh and Rama Devi, to

defraud and cheat the Respondent No.2 by

executing a sale deed after obtaining the full

consideration, despite having knowledge that the

land in question had already been transferred

earlier by Sita Ram Singh to another party.

8. In addition to the above, Mr. Mishra denied

the genuineness of the Deed of Sale executed by

Rama Devi in favour of the Respondent No.2 in

view of the observations made by the High Court

in its impugned order indicating that Prabhu

Singh, the Appellant's vendor had attested the

sale deed despite having full knowledge of the

earlier transactions in respect of the lands in

question.

9. Mr. Mishra submitted that the High Court had

rightly held that the question of genuineness of

the documents and the intention of the Appellant, 8

Sita Ram Singh and Prabhu Singh were required to

be decided on evidence in the backdrop of the

conspiracy alleged by the Respondent No.2, which

could only be done by holding a full-fledged

trial.

10. Having considered the submissions made on

behalf of the respective parties and having

considered the documents placed before us and

also the Courts below, we do not find any

substance in Mr. Mishra's submissions on behalf

of the Respondent No.2. From the materials

produced before us, no link has been established

between Prabhu Singh and the Respondent No.2. If

at all the Respondent No.2 has any grievance in

respect of the sale deed which had been executed

in his favour by the Appellant, it could be

against Prabhu Singh and not the Appellant. If

we were to accept Mr. Mishra's submissions, then

it was the Appellant Rama Devi who had been

cheated by her vendor, Prabhu Singh, who had sold 9

her the property in question, although, the same

is alleged to have been the subject matter of an

earlier sale effected by his brother, Sita Ram

Singh. The veracity of the Appellant's story may

be gauged from the fact that after having

purchased the suit property from Prabhu Singh by

a duly registered deed of sale, she applied to

the concerned authority of Phulwarisharif Circle

for mutation of her name in respect of the

jamabandi in which Survey Plot No.235 had been

included and the property continued to be mutated

in her name till such time as she transferred the

same to the Respondent No.2. There can be no

reason, as suggested by Mr. Mishra, for the

Appellant to have obtained the sale deed in her

name from Prabhu Singh with the intention of

cheating the Respondent No.2. In fact, no link

had at all been established between the sale

deeds executed by Sita Ram Singh in respect of

mutated property and the Appellant which could

have given rise to suspicion, if any, of a 10

conspiracy between herself and her vendor and his

brother Sita Ram Singh, with the intention of

cheating the Respondent No.2.

11. If the Respondent No.2 has been prejudiced by

the fact that the Appellant had executed a sale

deed in his favour in respect of a plot of land

which had already been the subject matter of a

previous transfer, he can at best question such

transfer and claim damages in respect thereof

from the vendor of the Appellant by way of

appropriate damages, but an action in the

Criminal Court would not lie in the absence of

any intention to cheat and/or defraud the

Respondent No.2.

12. We, therefore, have no doubt in our minds

that the Appellant, Rama Devi, cannot be made

responsible for the circumstances which followed

the sale effected by the Appellant in favour of

the Respondent No.2 and the filing of such a

criminal complaint was nothing more than an 11

attempt to pressurize the Appellant into making a

settlement.

13. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting

aside the order passed by the High Court on 20th

December, 2006, in Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006,

which has been impugned in this appeal.

Consequently, Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 and

the proceedings initiated on the basis thereof by

the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna,

are also quashed.

14. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is

allowed.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J. (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi Dated : 14.09.2010