CHANCHALA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of C.P. Case No.308 of 2011 including the order dated 19.10.2012, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120[B], 467, 468, 471 /34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

(2.) AS per the case of the complainant, the complainant entered into an agreement for selling a piece of land to the petitioner No.2 and thereby a deed of agreement to sell was executed, wherein one of the Clauses stipulated under the deed which has been mentioned in Para-3 reads as follows :-

(3.) IN this regard, it was submitted that what had been stipulated under Clause 3 is that within 11 months, sale deed was to be executed and at the same time, permission should have been obtained and if the permission could not have been obtained then in that situation, the statement which has been there in Para-10 could have taken care of, but by putting word "or" in Clause-3 that period has been extended by the petitioners in order to derive benefit and thereby, the petitioners can certainly be said to have committed offence of forgery. Regard being had to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, I do not agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that by putting word "or" in Para-3, the petitioners would not be getting any benefit out of it and that the petitioners would not derive any benefit rather it is otherwise as by putting the word "or" the period as stipulated under Clause 3 gets extended.