PATNA, India, Oct. 8 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 8:

Heard Mr. Saroj Kumar, learned counsel along with Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the F.I.R. being Tajpur P.S. (OP Waini) P.S. Case No. 636 of 2023, which was converted from Complaint No. 1043/2023 (G.R. No. 3663 of 2023), registered under Sections 323, 341, 379, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 469 of the Indian Penal Code and also the entire proceeding of the case pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Samastipur, Bihar.

3. As per the allegation made in the Complaint / F.I.R., the petitioners have allegedly dug the soil from the land of the complainant appertaining to Khata No. 581, Khesra No. 461, Area - 7 decimal putting the complainant to loss of Rs. 5 lacs. On being objected, the petitioners started abusing along with other co-accused claiming that petitioner no.1 Mithilesh Devi had purchased the land vide registered sale deed from one co-accused Suresh Das.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners informs that in Title Suit No. 82 of 1991, judgment and decree has been passed on 20.12.1995 in favour of the wife of the complainant Late Gita Devi. Father of the co-accused Suresh Das was the defendant in the said Suit. However, coaccused Suresh Das without disclosing the said fact executed the sale deed in respect of the same land appertaining to Khata No. 581, Khesra No. 461, Area - 7 decimal, which was the subject matter of the Title Suit No. 82/91. The petitioners being innocent and having not committed any forgery with the complainant, the criminal prosecution against them cannot sustain. He further submitted that the complainant has every right to get the sale deed cancelled in view of the decree passed in his favour much earlier to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner no.1 by co-accused Suresh Das. He further submitted that for recovery of money from the petitioners, without availing the remedy of filing money suit before the competent civil court, resorting to criminal prosecution will amount to abuse of process of the court. On these grounds, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been made prey on account of action of the coaccused Suresh Das who has fraudulently executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner no.1.

5. Learned APP submitted that the matter can be resolved amicably outside the Court or the petitioner can get the sale deed cancelled by filing a suit before the learned District Court.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, in view of the allegation made in the complaint / F.I.R. against the petitioners and the information contained in the complaint petition, as well as, in the application filed before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and having analyzed the provisions of Sections 323, 341, 379, 420, 466, 467, 468, 4741, 120B and 469 of the Indian Penal Code, I find that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The very intent / mens rea is one of the ingredients for causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly to defraud or do something fraudulently is not by itself made an offence under Indian penal Code, but various act when done fraudulently are made offence.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM0NTc2MyMyMDI0IzEjTg==-ypfkdy3z0mA=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.