OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.288/08, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 467 and 120 -B of the IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apposite to refer to the brief facts of the case, necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the petition, which are: One Nooro Bai lodged a report in the police station alleging that landed property belonging to her has been sold in her name by forging a sale deed. It was alleged that the land which was held by the lady was stated to have been mortgaged by her son - Satrughan to one Basant Yadav, co-accused, and time and again, upon being asked, the son kept on telling her that he had mortgaged the land with Basant. Later on, Nooro came to know through village people that in fact her property was sold by way of registered sale deed to Basant. In the report, it was alleged that she had never executed any sale deed and by forging her thumb impressions, a forged sale deed was prepared in favour of Basant. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. During investigation, the police did not implicate the petitioner as accused, but only as a prosecution witness and case diary statement of the petitioner was recorded. It so happened that while hearing bail application filed by one of the co-accused-Gadaram in M.Cr.C. No.962/08, this Court, while allowing the bail application, noticed that the circumstances of the case show that the petitioner is also prima facie involved in the alleged commission of offence and he was party to the fake registry. The Court further observed that the investigating officer ought to have proceeded against the Tahsildar, but he was left for the reason best known to him. This Court directed copy of the order to be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur for taking appropriate action against the concerned Investigating Officer and to take necessary steps. Upon filing of charge-sheet, in which, Satrughan, Basant and Gadaram were sent-up as accused, the case was taken-up for framing charges on 11.11.2008. After perusal of the charge- sheet and the documents appended thereto, learned Magistrate found that prima facie, from the charge-sheet it was revealed that the registry was a forged and fake document which shows the photograph of lady Nooro Bai affixed, whereas, the thumb impressions in the sale deed as also in the register are not found to be that of Nooro Bai, but the thumb impressions have been found by the Magistrate to be that of Satrughan, her son. On that basis, the Magistrate found that as it was the primary job of the Registering Officer to see whether the seller and purchaser were actually present, petitioner seems to be prima facie involved in the alleged commission of offence of forgery of valuable security. On that basis and also taking into consideration the observations made by this Court, while passing order in the bail application of Gadaram, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Sections 467 and 120 B of the IPC against the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.