HARENDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 08.11.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. 611-C of 1999 by the Court of Sri H.P. Tripathy, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, West Champaran at Bettiah, summoning the accusedpetitioners, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under Sections 418, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In brief, the case is that opposite party no. 2, Kishori Mahto (since deceased), filed the complaint petition in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, alleging therein that accused petitioner no. 1, Harendra Mahto, who is his nephew is separated to him and has no concerned to his property. He used to cultivate his land separately and has sold his land to Baristar Rao. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 further alleged that he came to know that his nephew, accused-petitioner no. 1, Harendra Mahto has filed the Title Suit No. 63 of 1992, pending in the Court of Sub-Judge- IV, Bettiah, using forged gift deed dated 27.09.1988 regarding his land detailed in Schedule-I, in which accusedpetitioner no. 2, Akhileshwar Dubey, is the identifier and accused-petitioner no. 3, Bipin Shukla, is the witness. In fact, he had no occasion to execute the alleged gift deed in favour of accused-petitioner No. 1 regarding his land and he never went to Registry Office for execution of the alleged gift deed, rather the accused-petitioner no. 1, Harendra Mahto putting a fake person on his place, has got executed the gift deed and on that very basis he has filed the title suit, while on complaint, his nephew, accused-petitioner no. 1, Harendra Mahto accepted his guilt and assured to execute the Wazidava regarding land of forged gift deed, but, later on he started to avoid. As such, the accusedpetitioners committed the forgery by preparing the forged gift deed and cheated him.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner made submission that when accused-petitioner no. 1, Harendra Mahto came to know about the execution of sale deed by the opposite party no. 2, Kishori Mahto (since deceased) regarding the land which had already been gifted to him through registered gift deed dated 27.09.1988, he filed the Title Suit No. 63 of 1992 against Baristar Rao and opposite party no. 2, Kishori Mahto (since deceased). Baristar Mahto and Kishore Mahto (since deceased) as defendants appeared before the Court on 18.11.1992 and sought time to file the written statement and, accordingly, on 27.04.1993, both filed the written statement in the Court, which would appear from Annexure-3, the ordersheets of Title Suit No. 63 of 1992, which is still pending for decision. Later on, with oblique motive and to put undue pressure, the opposite party no. 2 has filed the present Complaint Case No. 611-C of 2001 on 18.09.1999, against the petitioners maliciously only to give undue pressure.