R. Subhash Reddy, J.:— This Criminal Misc. Application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in respect of C.R No. I-120 of 2011 registered with Amreli City Police Station, against the petitioner for the alleged offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Prayer in the petition reads as under:
“9.(A) Your Lordships be pleased to quash the impugned FIR being C.R No. 120/2011 registered with Amreli City Police Station, Amreli for the offences punishable u/s 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, in the interest of justice;
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to delete the offences punishable u/s 467 and 468 of IPC from the impugned FIR being C.R No. I-120/2011 registered with Amreli City Police Station, Amreli and/or to pass any other and further orders, in the interest of justice;
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the police/investigating agency investigating the impugned FIR being C.R No. I-120/2011 to first verify the aspect to the effect that the forged signature/thumb impression are in fact got imposed by the complainant himself/his persons as alleged by the applicants in the present petition and thereafter only to take any steps against the applicant-accused, in the interest of justice;
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings of FIR being C.R No. I-120/2011 registered with Amreli City Police Station, Amreli for the offences punishable u/s 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice;
(E) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice;”
2. Based on the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 herein the complaint is registered for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of IPC. The dispute is in respect of the land covered under Survey No. 274, Moje Amreli. The said land was owned by three co-owners, who are real brothers. Applicants no. 1 and 2 herein are heirs of one brother and respondent no. 2 herein is the heir of another brother. The sum and substance of the allegation in the complaint is that original accused nos. 1 and 2, who are applicants no. 1 and 2 applied for entering their names/other legal heirs in the revenue record for the aforesaid land bearing Survey No. 274. Pursuant to such application, notices were issued under section 135-D of Bombay Land Revenue Code (‘the BLR Code’ for brevity). It is alleged that in notice dated 04.03.2011, signature of father of the complainant is imposed, though his father had passed away on 13.02.2011 It is also alleged that signature of other heirs also forged and such fabricated signatures are identified by the original accused nos. 3 and 4, who are applicants no. 3 and 4 herein.
3. In this petition, it is the say of the applicants that as a matter of fact, names of legal heirs of the deceased, Chandubhai have been mutated in the revenue records at the relevant point of time. Therefore, there was no need to issue notice to deceased-Chandubhai. It is stated in the petition that after issuance of notice under section 135(D) of the BLR Code, the same was given, in fact, to the complainant himself for the purpose of getting signature of legal heirs of deceased-Chandubhai and even if such thumb impression/signatures are presumed to be forged, the same are at the behest of the complainant only. It is the grievance of the applicants that even taking the allegations as it is, on the face of it, the dispute is of civil nature and no case is made out to proceed with investigation under sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC. Alternately, it is also pleaded that even the allegations are presumed to be correct they do not attract sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Even if such allegations are accepted, then also offence is to be registered under section 465 of IPC, in which event maximum punishment prescribed is two years and it is bailable.
4. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent-complainant. In the reply, while denying various allegations levelled by the applicants, it is said by the complainant-respondent no. 2 that with regard to allegations made in respect of F.I.R, it is a matter of investigation, as such on the face of the allegations, they do constitute offence which is registered under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, and thus, case is made out for investigation. It is stated in the reply affidavit that land bearing Survey No. 274.P/1, Moje Amreli, was in joint names of late Rudabhai, late Khurji Rudabhai and late Govindbhai Rudabhai (viz. father of applicants no. 1 and 2). As per family arrangement, the properties were partitioned among three brothers. Land bearing Survey No. 274 has come to the share of late Limba Ruda and late Khurji Rudabhai. Other lands/properties have gone to the share of late Govindbhai Rudabhai. In spite of that, names of three brothers continued in revenue record. It is pleaded that in presence of Talati-cum-Mantri, late Govindbhai Rudabhai and his heirs, including applicants no. 1 and 2 herein have executed ‘Fargati Lekh’ of waiving their rights qua the land bearing Survey No. 274.P/1. Father of applicants no. 1 and 2-late Govindbhai Rudabhai expired on 22.09.1999 and revenue entry no. 16538 was mutated recording names of heirs of late Limba Rudabhai and late Khurji Rudabhai and the said entry was certified on 27.05.2010 At no point of time, any objection was raised by applicants no. 1 and 2. Father of respondent no. 2-Chandubhai Limabhai has expired on 13.02.2011 and after his death, applicants no. 1 and 2 herein have made application before the Mamlatdar, E-Dhara, Amreli, requesting for recording the name of himself and his six brothers and sisters in respect of land bearing Survey No. 274 as heirs of late Govindbhai Rudabhai. Mamlatdar, E-Dhara, Amreli has issued notices on 03.03.2011 under section 135-D of the BLR Code and the said notices were not served on any of the family members of the complainant or other interested persons either in person or through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due as contemplated under Circular dated 21.03.2007 Though father of the complainant-Chandubhai has expired on 13.02.2011, his signatures were forged in section 135(D) notices and the same is identified by applicants no. 3 and 4. Revenue Entry No. 16961 was certified by the Mamlatdar, Amreli based on such notice which is acknowledged by respondent no. 2 and other legal heirs. As such, the complaint was lodged before Amreli Police Station, based on which crime is registered and F.I.R is issued. In the reply, while denying various allegations levelled by the applicants, it is stated that having regard to the clear allegations of forgery made by respondent no. 2-complainant it is a matter of investigation and no case is made out for quashing the proceedings.
5. Heard Shri. Harshit Tolia, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Shri. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no. 1-State and Shri. B.M Mangukiya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-complainant. In this petition it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that essentially the dispute is of civil nature. In spite of the same, based on false complaint filed by respondent no. 2, crime is registered under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. It is submitted that having regard to the allegations of forgery on the notice issued under section 135(D) of the BLR Code, such notice cannot be termed as valuable security within the meaning of section 30 of IPC. No case is made out under section 467 of IPC. It is also pleaded that such forgery does not relate to a will, thus no offence is made under section 467 of the IPC, so as to allow investigating agency to proceed with investigation. It is submitted that even in respect of offence under section 468 of IPC, no case is made out, on the face of the allegation, as it is not alleged to be forgery for purpose of cheating. It is pleaded that in any event as the allegation may attract offence under Chapter-XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 195 of IPC, procedure as contemplated under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed. Only the revenue court is competent to lodge complaint. No case can be registered by entertaining complaint filed by respondent no. 2. To substantiate his argument the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraja A. v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 and also on an unreported judgment of this Court in case of Kirtibhai Jamanbhai Alias Jamanadasbhai Vadaliya v. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Revision Application No. 222 of 2013 dated 08.01.2016, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prakash Ramchandra Barot v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GLH 211.
6. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-complainant that having regard to the allegations made it is a clear case of forgery and the same requires investigation by investigating agency. No case is made out for interference in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides, it is contended that the allegations clearly constitute offence of forgery, as much as though father of respondent no. 2 has died by the time of issuance of notice, in spite of the same, signatures were forged which are falsely identified by applicants no. 3 and 4 and all the accused have conspired to get entry in their favour based on false and fabricated documents. It is further pleaded that as no document is presented in the court within the meaning of section 195 of the IPC, procedure under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made applicable. It is submitted that at this stage, it does not require to go into merits of the allegations and it is a matter for the investigating agency which has already filed charge sheet to investigate the matter. Learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Bhaktan v. Rabindra Lele, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 227, and also the judgment in the case of C.P Subhash v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 559.
7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused copy of the complaint and other material placed on record. It is the specific allegation levelled by respondent no. 2 that signatures of father of respondent no. 2 were forged on notice issued under section 135(D) of the BLR Code. Such forgery is made for the purpose of availing benefit of entry in their favour for the land in question, though applicants no. 1 and 2 and their father have relinquished their right for the land in question. It is alleged that there is conspiracy by applicants no. 1 to 4 so as to deprive respondent no. 2-complainant and other legal heirs of the property in question by committing offence of forgery.
8. Based on such complaint made by respondent no. 2, case is registered against the applicants-accused for offence under sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. It does not relate to forgery of valuable security, will, etc. from perusal of provision under section 467 of IPC, it is true that it appears that there is no allegation made with regard to valuable security within the meaning of section 467 of IPC, but at the same time whether forgery was for the purpose of cheating or not within the meaning of section 468 of IPC is a matter for investigation. At the stage of considering the application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court cannot go into correctness of such allegations. It is for the investigating authorities to investigate on the complaint, and to file appropriate Final Report, as contemplated under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. When it is alleged against the applicants of forging the signature of late father of respondent no. 2, whether it is for the purpose of cheating within the meaning of section 415 of the IPC, it is also a matter for investigation. Whether allegations attract offence alleged or not is a matter which has to be looked into. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, there cannot be hard and fast rule on the said subject. As this Court is of the view that having perused F.I.R and the complaint and the reply affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, it is not possible to accept the plea of the applicants that no case is made out for the purpose of investigation on the face of F.I.R which is registered on the complaint made by respondent no. 2. Even with regard to the plea of the applicants that offence falls under Chapter-XI of the Code of Civil Procedure there, is bar to proceed with investigation under section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the procedure as contemplated under section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure to be followed, also cannot be accepted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370. It is clearly held that bar under section 195 of IPC would be attracted only when offence enumerated in section 195 of IPC has been committed with respect to a document, after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, viz. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. The same view is also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.P Subhash v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (supra) and also in the case of George Bhaktan v. Rabindra Lele (supra). It is the allegation of respondent no. 2 that only in notice issued under section 135(D) of the BLR Code, forgery is committed, forging the signature of father of respondent no. 2, as such it cannot be said that such issue falls within the scope of provision of section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure barring taking cognizance of offence, in such event, section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made applicable.
9. The learned counsel for the applicants made an effort to show that the dispute is of civil nature, as such, no criminal proceedings are said to be warranted. Reliance is placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in case of Kirtibhai Jamanbhai Alias Jamanadasbhai Vadaliya v. State of Gujarat (supra), and the judgment in the case of Prakash Ramchandra Barot v. State of Gujarat (supra), but having regard to the fact situation and the allegations made in the complaint which are extracted in the F.I.R, this Court is of the view that such judgments also would not render any assistance in support of the case of the applicants so as to quash the proceedings.
10. During the course of arguments it is also brought to the notice of this Court that after completing investigation, charge sheet is already filed before competent court. In that view of the matter, for the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the fact that charge sheet is already filed, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the applicants for quashing the F.I.R at this stage.
11. I do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Comments