MANOHAR PATNAIK Vs. RANJEET KUMAR PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Criminal Misc. Cases arise out of the same complaint case, i.e. ICC No. 78 of 1999 pending before the S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar. Accordingly both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) THE three petitioners in Crl. Misc. Case No. 363 of 2003 challenge the order dated 27.1.03 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhanjanagar in the aforesaid complaint case framing charges against them under Sections 420/468/34, IPC. The complaint case was filed by Ranjeet Patnaik, opposite party No. 1 in this Criminal Misc. Case, inter alia, alleging that petitioner No. 1 Manohar Patnaik managed to sell some lands belonging to the branch of the complainant by means of five registered sale deeds describing himself as the son of Suryanarayan Patnaik instead of Adinarayan Patnaik. According to the complainant, petitioner No. 1 is the son of Adinarayan Patnaik and he impersonated himself in order to cause loss and prejudice and to cheat the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the other two accused persons, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the Cri.Misc. Case, had executed the sale deeds and alienated the properties belonging to the branch of Suryanarayan Patnaik knowing fully well that being the sons of Adinarayan they were not entitled to execute such sale deeds. In the case, twenty documents were relied upon by the complainant in support of his case. The complainant had also furnished the names of his witnesses. The learned J.M.F.C. conducted an inquiry as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and after observing all paraphernalia framed charges against the accused -petitioners as stated above.

(3.) IN course of hearing, Miss Ghose, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cri.Misc.Case No. 363/03, forcefully submitted that there is absolutely no material to frame any charge against the accused -petitioners. According to her, the properties in question are the joint family properties and Suryanarayan and Adinarayan were two branches of the joint family. Though the execution of the five sale deeds by petitioner No. 1 is admitted, according to the learned counsel, the same were inadvertent mistakes and coming to know that steps have been taken to rectify the same. It was further submitted that petitioner No. 1 had absolutely no mens rea or any intention to commit the offence as alleged, and as such the Court below acted illegally in framing charges against the accused -petitioners. According to her, if the impugned order is not quashed, the petitioners who are innocent persons would be compelled and coerced to face the rigors of criminal trial, thereby causing immense hardship and prejudice to them.