NAVIN CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No. 2 has appeared in the application yet at the time of hearing neither O.P. No. 2 nor his accredited counsel are present.

(2.) THE sole accused of Complaint Case No. 51 of 2006 has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.7.2006 passed therein by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 419, 420, 120B, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. One Bindeshwari Pd. Singh, the complainant, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging that his father Baleshwar Prasad Singh had given a piece of land appertaining to mauza -Gaura, Thana No. 282, by registered Dan Patra dated 16.9.1980 to one Gopal Chandra Singh vide Registration No. 12763 and following mutation he was paying rent to the State for which receipts were issued. It is also said that even after the recent consolidation operations the lands were shown in the possession of Gopal Chandra Singh on the basis of the Dan Patra and khatian was also prepared and some lands on the basis of family partition in the year 1942 were shown in the share of the father of the complainant. It is alleged that accused Navin Chandra Singh had got prepared a false Badlanama on 1.1.1989 on which the fabricated signatures of Baleshwar Prasad Singh, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, witnesses Suresh Prasad Das and Mahendra Rajak and deed writer Bishwnath Singh were obtained. He said that the signatures on the Badlanama do not tally with the signatures on the registered Dan Patra of 1980 and the partition of 1942 and as such the petitioner herein with the intention of deceit had prepared a fabricated Badlanama by implanting forged signatures.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to admitted previous enmity and dirty village politics as would be apparent from the fact that although the fabricated Badlanama appears to have been prepared on 1.1.1989 the instant case had been filed after 17 years and for the inordinate delay no explanation has been furnished. It has further been submitted that the father of the complainant and the petitioner are own brothers and the petitioner and the complainant are first cousins by relationship and several cases are pending inter se. In this connection it has been submitted that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was started on 21.2.2003 which was dropped and the parties were directed to seek relief before the Civil Court. That apart the petitioner had filed a case against the complainant of the present case and others being Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2002 in which charge -sheet has been submitted and the evidence of witnesses are going on before the trial Court and when the informant failed in his efforts to pressure the petitioner to turn hostile the complaint case has been filed. The petitioner has also filed a complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No. 1268 of 2002 against the complainant on 28.11.2002 and it is by way of a counter blast that the instant complaint case had been filed. Finally it was submitted that it would be apparent from the complaint petition that the entire dispute is civil in nature and no ingredients of any criminal liability has been made out and as such the entire proceeding requires to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to point out with a reference to Annexure -6 of this application that one of the witnesses, namely, Tamizuddin, had filed an affidavit stating therein that the complainant was the person who had forcibly taken his signature on the Badlanama and it was due to fear that he had signed in the said Badlanama.