ELA TIGGA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Criminal Revisions are directed against the common order impugned dated 09.02.2009 passed by Shri Diwakar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by which the common petition for their discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners of both the revisions in Complaint Case No. 538 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 853 of 2009 was rejected.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the complainant - O.P. No. 2 herein filed a Complaint Case No. 538 of 2002 before the C.J.M., Ranchi narrating therein that she was the widow of late Kushal Tigga, an employee of Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineer Ltd., Diesel Engine Plant, Dhurwa, Ranchi, who died on 15.03.1996 leaving behind the complainant being the widow. It was further stated that as there was no issue from them, her husband Kushal Tigga had adopted a son Godwin Tigga @ Champi some 22 years ago in his lifetime and therefore the complainant as well as Godwin Tigga @ Champi were the only legal heirs and successors of the deceased Kushal Tigga. It was alleged against the accused persons including the petitioners that they in furtherance of common intention obtained the signature of the complainant - O.P. No. 2 on a paper on the assurance that they would help her in obtaining the amount due to her being the arrears of her deceased husband. However, she gathered after some time that all the accused persons sworn affidavits claiming themselves to be the legal heirs and successors with the intention to obtain the due amount of Kushal Tigga but they failed to establish, and upon enquiry it was detected that they had produced forged documents claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of Kushal Tigga. It was further alleged that on 08.08.2002 all the accused persons tried to harass her and that the accused-petitioner Ela Tigga filed an objection before the R.S.D.C., Ranchi though the adopted son of the complainant had already obtained permission under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. It was stated that the petitioner Ela Tigga filed an objection in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Succession Case No. 219 of 2001 filed by the complainant - O.P. No. 2 in which the accused No. 2 to 4 (petitioners herein) claiming themselves as the daughters of late Kushal Tigga, wanted to snatch the entire property as well as the amount to the extent of Rs. 2,09,480/- being the arrears of late Kushal Tigga pending before the Department by using forged documents, as such the accused persons committed offence under Sections 467/468/471 & allied Sections of I.P.C. The complainant - O.P. No. 2 was examined on solemn affirmation and thereafter 4 witnesses were produced and examined in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but the learned Magistrate after hearing the Counsels of the Opposite Party No. 2 and upon perusal of the record dismissed the complaint by the order dated 25.11.2002 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against that order, Cr. Revision No. 128 of 2002 was preferred by the complainant - O.P. No. 2 and the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-X, Ranchi by a detailed order dated 17th October, 2003 set aside the order impugned passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and remanded back the matter for passing an order afresh after making further enquiry. However, on reconsideration, the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case only against Salomi Tigga for the alleged offence under Sections 323/406/419/468/ & 471 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons. The complainant - O.P. No. 2 against the said order filed Cr. Revision No. 133 of 2004 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was heard on transfer by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. X, Ranchi who by the order dated 06.08.2005 directed summons to be issued also to the petitioners Ela Tigga, Urjila Tigga & Parmila Tigga. Having been dissatisfied with the impugned order the petitioners of both the Cr. Revisions filed an application under Section 245 Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge on the sole ground that the complainant - O.P. No. 2 had filed the complaint case with the intention to grab the property and dues of their father Kushal Tigga by implicating them into malicious prosecution though they were innocent and no offence was attracted against any of them. They were married daughters, living at their matrimonial homes.

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P.P.N. Roy appearing for the petitioners in both the revisions submitted that there was no material at all against the petitioners that they had ever assaulted the complainant or that any properly was entrusted to any of them to which they allegedly misappropriated or that any of them had ever impersonated for gains. Even the allegation of committing forgery for the purpose of cheating or defrauding any one could not be prima facie made out against them. No material could be brought on the record in support of the allegation that the petitioners used any forged document as genuine knowing the same to be forged. It would be relevant to mention, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate who had earlier dismissed the Complaint Petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. had on the same set of facts and materials issued summons to the petitioners without disclosing the circumstances and assigning reasons for backing out from his earlier findings which cannot be sustained under law.