RUPDEO PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad, filing a complaint before the District Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal P. C. against the petitioners in the following circumstances.

(2.) On 9-7-1949, Rupdeo Pandey filed a first information report with the police at Jehanabad under Sections 148, 326, 323 etc., Penal Code against one Sheoram Singh and others. They were, however, acquitted on appeal of the charges brought against them. It is alleged that in course of the trial, petitioner No. 1, Rupdeo Pandey, filed a hukumnama (Ex. 2) in the case and receipt (Ex. 3) saying that plot No. 3022 was settled with him and he was in possession. The case of the opposite party, Sheoram Singh; who was accused in the criminal case, however, was that he was the purchaser of the land under a registered sale deed dated 24-5-1949, so that the case of the prosecution that Rupdeo Pandey and others had obtained settlement of the land from the landlord was false and concocted. Rupdeo Pandey filed the hukumnama to support his case of settlement, as I have said, bearing exhibit mark 2 and a receipt, Ex. 3. The two documents were held as forged and it was after the appellate judgment that the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Jehanabad thought it expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against them under Sections 193, 465 and 471, Penal Code variously under the provisions of Section 476, Criminal P. C. The petitioners were duly asked to show cause why they should not be proceeded against, and the learned Magistrate not being satisfied with the explanation offered by them ordered their prosecution. An appeal filed against the order was disposed of by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, who upheld the order for prosecution passed by the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Jehanabad.

(3.) Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha contends that so far as petitioner Rupdeo. Pandey is concerned it is no doubt true that he alleged that he obtained the hukumnama (Ex. 2) and the receipt (Ex. 3) from the landlord. Petitioner No. 7, Rajnandan Lal, also deposed in the case on behalf of the prosecution claiming to have scribed Exhibits 2 and 3 as the landlord's Amla. It is thus urged that it would be unfair for him to press the application of these two persons, as there may be some justification for action under Section 476, Criminal P. C. against them. His contention, however, is that in respect of the remaining petitioners, who have been proceeded against only because they are members of the family of Rupdeo Pandey and interested in the land, they should not be harassed by this prosecution. They did not file the documents in the criminal case, nor did they come to depose in the prosecution case, and in that view of the matter the prosecution ordered by the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Jehanabad is not warranted by the terms of Section 476, Criminal P. C., and as such should be quashed. Learned Advocate for the opposite party, Mr. L. M. Sharma, also appreciates the reasonableness of this argument. I think the contention is correct. The Courts below were not justified in looking upon the case of the petitioners as if they had done something in a body, whereas, as I have said, none others than Rupdeo Pandey and Rajnandan Lal played any active part in the criminal case which was launched on behalf of the petitioners. The application is, therefore, allowed so far as petitioners other than Rupdeo Pandey and Rajnandan Lal are concerned. The fact that Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha has fairly conceded that the case against these two petitioners may be justified does not mean that he feels that prosecution has got a good case against them. He contends that for the purpose of action under Section 476, Criminal P. C. in a prima facie manner, prosecution has got to say something in respect of these two petitioners which will be duly investigated in course of the trial.