BASANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Misc. Petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Kasmar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2000 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465/468 of the Indian Penal Code then pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat and also the order dated 21.03.2001 by which the learned A.C.J.M. has taken cognizance against the petitioners.

(2.) THE brief facts as it appear from the Complaint is that the complainant claims himself to be the grandson of Lakshman Mahto. It is further stated that Lakshman Mahto had two sons and one daughter, namely, Jitu Mahto, Sona Ram Mahto and daughter Nhuni Bala Devi. Nhuni Bala Devi was married with Aklu Mahto and she was having three sons namely Chunua Kurmi, Bhadarua Kurmi and Baini Kurmi. The aforesaid three sons of Aklu Mahto had acquired 42 decimals of land in village Raghunathpur prior to Survey and Settlement Operation and they were coming in peaceful possession over the said land. It is again contended that all the three sons of said Aklu Mahto died issueless and after that the complainant and his brother have been coming in possession over the said land. It is alleged that the accused persons after hatching out a conspiracy got the said land transferred in the name of accused no.1 to 7 through vendor - Shyam Lal Mahto. Shyam Lal Mahto is claiming himself to be the grandson of Chunua Kurmi. The sale -deed executed by said Shyam Lal Mahto is purelya forged document and created to make claim over the land which has been coming in possession of the complainant and his brothers. When the complainant could learn about the forgery committed by the accused persons, he has filed a complaint which was sent to the concerned police under Section 156 (3) of the Code Criminal Procedure 2 and after that Kasmar P.S. Case No. 62/2000 date 16.12.2000 under Sections 420/465/468/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After completing investigation, the police has submitted final form but the learned A.C.J.M. after going through the case diary and the materials available, passed the impugned order dated 21.3.2001.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the argument and submitted that any person has right to put the law in motion if any cognizable offence is committed. It is made clear in para 6 of the complaint that the complainant had been coming in possession over the land in question after the death of three sons of Aklu Mahto. The witnesses examined in the case diary have clearly stated that no person as Shyam Lal Mahto, who had executed the sale -deed in favour of accused persons, was ever available in the village or known to any of the villagers. It has been further pointed out that the defence of the petitioner -accused cannot be considered at this stage in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.