MANGLA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicants Mangla Prasad and three others with the prayer to set aside the order dated 15.7.2004 passed by A.C.J.M.-V, Court No. 16, Jaunpur in complaint Case No. 423 of 2003, Shiv Prasad Singh v. Mangla Prasad Singh and Others and the further proceedings arising out of said case. The facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2, Shiv Prasad Singh @ Ram Palat filed a complaint case No. 423 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- V, Court No. 16, Jaunpur on 5.3.2003 against the applicants and another, under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 471 and 472 read with Section 120B IPC with the allegations that Smt. Manraji Devi was his real Bua (father's sister) and was married with Musai Singh, resident of Bhikhnapur, Police Station- Sarpatha, District Jaunpur but unfortunately Musai Singh died at a young age, so the said Bua started to live with Chauthi Singh, father of the complainant, in village Jagdishpur. The complainant's father Chauthi Singh also died when the complainant was only four years of age and as the complainant's mother was pregnant with his younger brother (Dukhran Singh) at that time, so the complainant's Bua remained back at the his house in village Jagdishpur and looked after the house responsibilities. She had love and affection for the complainant and due to his services, she executed a power of attorney on 22.7.1991 in his favour and got it registered. As she had become very old and in order to avoid any dispute in future regarding the property, she also executed a registered will-deed in favour of the complainant and his brother Dukhran Singh. The complainant's Bua Smt. Manraji Devi had also opened a saving bank account No. 1036 in her name in District Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 6.8.1991 and had deposited some money but due to her illness she could not deposit any more money and ultimately on 20.3.1992 she died at the age of 90 years at the residence of the complainant. It is further alleged that the applicants 1 to 3 are the Pattidar of Smt. Manraji Devi and had an eye on her property and they entered into a criminal conspiracy with applicant No. 4 and another and got executed a forged gift-deed by some impostor on 19.9.1991 in favour of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 which was got registered at Kolkata, The thumb impression of Manraji Devi was fraudulently made by some unknown lady. It is also alleged that it is note-worthy that Manraji Devi, due to her old age, was not in a position to go to Kolkata and had not gone anywhere outside the village. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in collusion with other accused got their names recorded in the revenue records in Tehsil- Shahganj on 23.8.1992, on the basis of the said forged deed. The complainant, on coming to know about the said facts, moved a restoration application in Tehsil Shahganj, District- Jaunpur and ultimately filed a Civil Suit No. 1145 of 1995, Shiv Prasad v. Santosh Kumar Singh for cancellation of the said deed. Inspite of this, the applicants did not file their reply nor produced the said gift-deed in the said suit till the year 2000, rather the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 filed another Civil Suit No. 802 of 2000 against the complainant and his brother for cancellation of the will-deed executed in their favour and for grant of injunction. In the said suit they produced the said forged gift-deed and it is only then that the complainant came to know about the said gift-deed. The accused persons, under a criminal conspiracy and with the motive of grabbing the property of the complainant, had got prepared the forged deed in their favour and it was prayed that they may be summoned under the aforesaid Sections.

(2.) After receiving the said complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. and after perusing the entire materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the alleged forged deed has not been canceled by a competent Court and unless there is declaration by a competent Court that the said deed is forged, no legal presumption can be drawn regarding the said deed to be forged and hence prima facie case does not appear to be made out against the accused persons and accordingly the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P.C., vide order dated 18.9.2003.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint, the complainant preferred a criminal revision No. 537 of 2003 before the Revisional Court and after considering the materials available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the non-declaration of the said document to be forged by the competent Court does not create any hindrance in proceeding with the criminal case and hence, vide order dated 24.4.2004, the order of the Court below was set aside and the matter was remanded back.