SHARDA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, referred to as 'the Code') with a prayer to quash the First Information Report of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 1 of 2004 dated 2nd January 2004 which was instituted for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and six others. The complainant-informant Birendra Prasad filed Complaint Case No. 1767 of 2003 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and six others and the complaint petition was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra to Police for institution of FIR and, accordingly, the FIR has been instituted and the Police is conducting investigation into the case.

(2.) The allegation as levelled by the complainant/informant in the said complaint petition is that one of the accused Jitendra Prasad (who is not petitioner), the husband of the petitioner Sharda Devi has filed Title Suit No. 66 of 2003 against the complainant/informant (O.P. No. 2) and the Executive Officer of Municipality, Chapra in the. Court of Munsif-l, Chapra and he (the complainant) received summons in that suit. It was further alleged that on receiving summons the complainant appeared in that suit and on verification of the record through his counsel, he learnt that accused Jitendra Prasad has filed in that suit photo copy of a forged Will dated 1st June 1988 executed by Kishori Devi wife of late Jagannath Sah in. favour of the petitioner Sharda Devi with respect to the land appertaining to Holding No. 193, Ward No. 20, Circle No. 6 within Chapra Municipality and that other accused persons, namely, Rajendra Prasad, Janardan Prasad and Nand Kumar stood as witness on the Will and accused Ram Nagina Rai (since dead) was the scribe of the Will. The complainant further alleged that Kishori Devi was his aunt and that she had never executed such Will nor she had given her thumb impression on any such Will. It was further stated in the complaint petition that accused Jitendra Prasad had appeared in Chapra Municipality Mutation Case No. 182 of 2000/2001 and he had filed one objection petition dated 21st June 2000 and that he had not disclosed anything in that objection petition about the Will hence, the complainant suspected the accused Jitendra Prasad had forged the Will between 21st October, 2000 to 21st June 2002. Hence, the complainant further alleged that the accused persons had forged the Will and had filed the same in the said title suit with a purpose to grab the land under the Will. Thus, the complainant/informant alleged the Will as filed by complainant's husband Jitendra Prasad in the said title suit being forged and fabricated only on the ground that on perusal of the photo copy of the Will, he found that it was forged one and the ground for thinking the Will being forged and fabricated was also that in the previous mutation proceeding, petitioner's husband Jitendra Prasad had appeared and had filed objection but he had not stated in his objection petition about the Will. Besides these, no other ground has been mentioned in the complaint petition for alleging the Will forged and fabricated one. Alongwith his petition, the petitioner filed Annexure-3 which is copy of plaint under probate case No. 22 of 2003 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, filed by the petitioner Sharda Devi in the Court of District Judge, Saran at Chapra praying for grant of letter of administration with respect to the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. Thus, through Annexure-3 it appears that the petitioner Sharda Devi had filed the said probate case for grant of letter of.administration with respect to the properties under the Will.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner's husband has already filed the said title suit in which the complainant has appeared. It was further submitted that the petitioner has also filed the said probate case (Annexure-3) for issuance of letter of administration and that in that case also the complainant has appeared. The petitioner asserted that the Will on the basis of which the said title suit and the said probate case have been filed is genuine and that the complainant has also appeared in those cases and that the matter in sub-judice and the Will is under the scrutiny of the Court of competent jurisdiction where the title suit and the probate case have been filed and that the petitioner is ready to prove the Will and establish her claim before those Courts according to law. It was further argued that the complainant can raise his objections on the Will in the title suit and the probate case. But, the learned counsel continued to submit that, the complainant filed the complaint petition which forms the basis of the FIR against the beneficiary, Sharda Devi and her family members, witnesses and the scribe of the Will with false allegation based on suspicion only as a device to put pressure in the title suit and the probate case filed by the petitioner and her husband. The further contention of the learned counsel was that in the complaint petition, there is no specific material to show the commission of the offence by any specific person in any specific manner at any particular time, but there is general and vague allegation based on suspicion only that on perusal of the photo copy of the Will it appeared to be forged and fabricated and that in earlier mutation proceeding when the petitioner's husband had filed objection, he had not discussed anything about the Will in that objection petition. The complainant/informant has filed a counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit he has stated that in the mutation proceeding, in which the petitioner's husband had filed objection petition he had stated that he was living in that house for about 40 years but in para 6 of the petition for quashing, the petitioner claims to be residing in that house for a period exceeding 30 years. But this is not a serious contradiction to be considered in support of the complainant's case at this stage. In Para 17 of the counter affidavit, the complainant/informant (O.P. No. 2) has mentioned that he had purchased the house through sale-deed from one daughter of late Jagannath Prasad, the recorded tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant (O.P. No. 2) claims the house through purchase from one of the issues i.e. daughter of the testator whereas the petitioner claims to have obtained the property through the Will and that on the basis of the Will, the said title suit and the probate case have been filed by the petitioner and her husband and that the complainant has already appeared in the title suit and the probate case. It was further submitted that in the probate case not only the complainant (O.P. No. 2) has appeared but other heirs of the testator have also appeared and it is being tried in the Court of competent jurisdiction where the matter is sub-judice and the Will is under scrutiny of the Court and the petitioner is ready to prove the Will. The learned counsel for the petitioner continued to submit that the complainant has filed the complaint simply on suspicion and that there is nothing specific in the complaint petition to show a prima facie case as alleged by the complainant. It was further argued that the complainant has filed this case falsely as pressure tactics to put pressure on the petitioner, her family members and the witnesses to the Will so that they can be restrained from appearing and proving the truth in the said title suit and the probate case. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the complaint has been filed for offences under Section 471 and other Sections of the IPC but the offence is mainly under Section 471, IPC only i.e. the offence of using as genuine a forged document. He submitted that the allegation of the complainant/informant is that the petitioner and her husband have filed the Will in the said title suit and probate case and that a forged Will has been filed as a genuine one.