SRI KRISHNA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by Shri Krishna Gupta who has been summoned to stand trial for offences under sections 406, 420. 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case No. 967 (C)/2006. There is no dispute that the properties detailed in the complaint petition noted above were the joint properties of the complainant and other accused persons. It is also not disputed that there is a partition suit pending for partition of the properties at Gajipur (U.P.) The allegation is that the petitioner as vendee and other accused persons as vendors, with active connivance of each other, brought into existence a forged and fabricated deed of sale transferring 3.751/2 acres of land out of total area of 5.63 acres as detailed in Annexure-3. The complainant alleged that he was not a party to the above noted sale deed nor did he sign the same in token of executing the sale deed and registering the same and the document was forged and fabricated.

(2.) The contention is that the complainant very much participated in execution of the deed and admitted the execution of the deed before the Registrar who exempted all the vendors i.e. the complainant and other accused persons from putting their L.T.Is. because they were personally known to the Registrar and that was admittedly recorded at the appropriate space of the sale deed. The further contention was that the signature of the complainant on the sale deed is very much of the complainant and for reasons best known to him, he has filed a false case.

(3.) Shri K.N. Choubey Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant pointed out that the pendency of a civil suit and in view of other circumstances the deed could not be said to be a valid document and the complainant Praveen Kumar Gupta was never a party to it. Shri Choubey further raised the question of maintainability of the present petition by pointing out that the petitioner and other accused persons have only been summoned to appear in the Court and as such they could not have any reasonable belief of being arrested on an accusation of committing a non-bailable/cognizable offence. Shri Choubey cited Gurubaksha Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632. and Adri Dharan Das, (2005) 4 SCC 303:2005 (27) AIC 8 (SC):2005 (51) ACC 706. to contend that this could not be a case for granting anticipatory bail. Sri Choubey further placed before this Court Fakira Singh Vs. The State of Bihar,1984 HBCJ 383. and contended that issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused was a sine qua non and there being no issuance of warrant of arrest the petition was not maintainable.