BANESHWAR DAS PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Criminal revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of Shri Baneshwar Das Poddar, accused-petitioner and this is directed against the impugned order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur, Murshidabad on 14.8.1997 in G.R. Case No. 406/95 (T.R. No. 446/97) arising out of Sagardighi, P.S. Case No. 76/95 dated 17.7.1995 under Sections 465/467/471/474/420/109 IPC.

(2.) THE case of the accused-petitioner was in brief that the Complainant-O.P. No. 2 filed a written complaint before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur against the accused-petitioner and two others making several allegations against them and the said written complaint was treated as F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate concerned. In the said written complaint it was the case of the O.P. No. 2 that the said O.P. No. 2, his mother and brothers were the owners of land measuring 28.66 acres under Khatian No. 94, Plot Nos. 2 and 3 of Mouza Surjapur, P.S. Sagardighi, Murshidabad. To be specific, the nature of the land was tank having an area of 15.39 acres and the adjoining land having an area of 13.27 acres. Since the petitioner was familiar with O.P. No. 2 and his other family members, a registered deed of lease was executed by the said owners of the land and tank in favour of the petitioner to be effective from 17th December, 1970 on condition that the petitioner will look after the leasehold property for a period of 25 years and pay annual rent at the rate of Rs. 999/- to the owners during the said period. Time flew by and the period of lease for 25 years came to an end. But, unfortunately, the petitioner did not hand over the leasehold property to O.P. No. 2 and other owners. It has also been alleged in the said written complaint that the petitioner manufactured a false registered Ekrarnama in connivance with others in respect of the said property, and filed a case under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Jangipur annexing a xerox copy of the said false Ekrarnama and prayed for a restraint order so that O.P. No. 2 and his family members cannot get back the tank and the land in question. It has also been alleged in the said written complaint that since the Ekrarnama was a false one, the O.P. No. 2 and other owners had no other alternative but to file the present case of cheating, forgery etc. against the petitioner and others before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur. The Police made investigation in the said matter and on completion of the same submitted a charge-sheet on 19.7.1997 against the petitioner and others under Sections 465/467/474/420/109 IPC. In the said case being G.R. Case No. 406/95, although it was pointed out by the petitioner that since no complaint in writing was lodged by the Court concerend regarding the alleged forged Ekrarnama, learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur was not competent to take cognizance of the offences in view of the legal bar provided for in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioner, such a lawful plea was illegally rejected by learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur, vide impugned order dated 14.8.1997. By the said order as impugned, learned S.D.J.M. fixed a date of framing of charge against the petitioner and others. Hence, the instant Criminal revisional application for quashing the impugned order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur on 14.8.1997.

(3.) THE only question requiring consideration in this Criminal revisional application was whether the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jangipur, Murshidabad in G.R. Case No. 406 of 1995 on 14.8.1997 was irregular, improper and illegal as alleged by the petitioner or not.