ABID HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashment of the FIR of Crime No. 44/2014 registered under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 120B, 201 of the IPC at police station Mahakal, District Ujjain on the ground that from the avernment of the FIR no offence is made out against the applicants.

(2.) In the police station Mahakal, District Ujjain, Crime No. 44/2014 has been registered on 21/01/2014 on the basis of written complaint made by respondent no.2 Abdul Hassain stating that he is owner of the land bearing Survey No.115 situated in District Ujjain and accused persons are owner of land bearing Survey No.115/1 situated in District Ujjain but the applicants/accused persons have sold out the land bearing Survey No.115 showing to be Survey No.115/1 to one Ayub Khan, S/o Yakub Khan and executed registered sale deed on 11/10/201 Accordingly, the applicants/accused persons have committed offence of cheating, forgery and thereafter on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the applicants have not received any money from the complainant and not committed offence of cheating with the respondent no.2. So far the allegation with regard to commission of offence of forgery is concerned, the applicant has put their signature on the sale deed stating their names on the sale deed. The allegations is that the avernments are false in the sale deed with regard to the title of the land but mere false allegation in any document is not sufficient to deem the document to be forged. The definition of forged document has been given in section 463, 464 of the IPC. In this case there is no ingredients of aforesaid offence in the FIR. Hence, prima facie there is no avernment of the offence with regard to commission of the cognizable offence. Therefore, in the eyes of law, there is no FIR and the same deserve to be quashed and when the FIR does not disclose commission of the cognizable offence, the police has no right to investigate the matter and all proceedings based on such FIR is insignificant and cannot be continued and deserve to be set aside. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & others v. State of Bihar & another (2009)8 SCC 751 stating that the facts of the present case and the facts of the aforesaid case dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court are same. Hence, the petition be allowed.