Khinti Karjee v. Pratin Thakur And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) CRR 215 of 2022 Smt. Khinti Karjee Vs.

Sri Pratin Thakur & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty.

For the State : Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, : Mr. Sourav Ganguly.

For the Private Opposite Parties : Mr. Arnab Saha. Hearing concluded on : 10.10.2023 Judgment on : 12.10.2023

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1.

The present revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alipurduar in Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2021 affirming the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar in connection with C.R. Case No. 238/2019, C.N.R. No. WBJP06-001776-2019, CIS 5 of 2019. 2.

The petitioner's case is that one Mauriya Mech (Thakur) was the original owner of the land measuring 30 bighas which is situated at Mouza-Uttar Mendabari, under P.S. Kalchini, District-Alipurduar and the said Mauriya Mech (Thakur) died in the year 1989 leaving behind 3 daughter namely 1) Mojari Thakur, 2) Shanti Champramary, 3) Khinti Karjee (the petitioner herein) as legal heirs and successors. The said Majari Thakur subsequently died. The said Shanti Champramary and Khinti Karjee are alive.

3.

That during the lifetime of said Mauriya Mech (Thakur), he transferred the 2.59 acre quantity of land under Khatian No. 346, J.L. No. 09, Plot No. 1335, 1329, 1336 and 1338/1455 in Mouza Uttar Mendabari, P.S. Kalchini, District-Alipurduar in favour of the petitioner who is the daughter of said Mauriya Mech (Thakur) through a registered sale deed vide Deed No. 365 of 1986, dated 17.01.1986 and since then the petitioner is enjoying the said land.

4.

That recently the opposite parties/accused persons No. 1 to 4 who are in relation brothers, are creating trouble in respect of said land of the petitioner and when the petitioner requested the opposite party/accused person no. 1 to 4 not to create any trouble regarding the said land of the petitioner, the said opposite parties/accused persons expressed that the petitioner has transferred the said land in favour of opposite party/accused no. 1 by registered sale deed. The petitioner hearing this was shocked and went to the office of the Additional District SubRegistrar, Alipurduar and on searching, found that an illegal and forged deed of sale was allegedly executed by the complainant/petitioner in favour of the opposite party/accused no. 1 on 15.02.1991 vide Deed No. 1080 of 1991. The petitioner/complainant thus got the knowledge about the alleged deed, on 14.08.2018.

5.

It is stated that the petitioner has never transferred the said land nor executed any kind of sale deed as alleged in the name of opposite party/accused no. 1 and the accused person no. 1 alongwith other accused persons are the main manufacturer of the said alleged forged and fraudulent deed. The signature of the petitioner/complainant and her husband and the identifier of the alleged deed, are also forged. 6.

The petitioner states that the opposite parties/accused persons with the help of the forged deed, illegally recorded the said land in the name of the opposite party/accused person no. 1 without the knowledge of the petitioner/complainant.

7.

The accused persons have thus cheated the petitioner/complainant and the petitioner/complainant could know about the forged deed only on 14.08.2018 after obtaining the certified copy of the said deed from A.D.S.R., Alipurduar.

8.

The petitioner/complainant also served legal notice upon the opposite parties/accused persons on 28.08.2018 disclosing actual facts and requested them to cancel the alleged, forged deed but the opposite parties/accused persons did not respond.

9.

Thereafter the petitioner/complainant has been lodged the F.I.R. with the Inspector-in-Charge, Alipurduar Police Station on 25.10.2018 but to no effect. Thereafter the petitioner/complainant filed a further complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Alipurduar on 18.01.2019 but still no action has been taken from their end against the opposite parties/accused persons for their illegal acts. The petitioner/complainant had also informed the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Alipurduar, Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Kalchini and ADSR, Alipurduar. As such the petitioner/complainant finding no other alternative filed one application under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Alipurduar being C.R. Case No. 238 of 2019 against the opposite parties/accused persons No. 1 to 4, praying for treating the same as FIR under Sections 406/467/468/420/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code with a prayer to investigate the matter impartially.

10.

The Ld. Court has been pleased to pass an order in terms of Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and Officer-in-Charge, Kalchini Police Station was directed to cause an enquiry into the alleged incident on 13.08.2018 and after a long period, the Officer-in-Charge, Kalchini Police Station has submitted report on 31.03.2021. On receiving the report the learned Court dismissed the said case under Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code on the findings that the petitioner had failed to establish any prima facie case under Section 420 of Criminal Procedure Code. 11.

On 07.04.2021, challenging the said impugned order dated 31.03.2021, the petitioner/complainant filed a Criminal Motion being No. 21 of 2021 before the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge at Alipurduar for stay and/or set aside of the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar in C.R. Case No. 238 of 2019.

12.

On 28.04.2022 the said Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2021 was heard before the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Alipurduar and after hearing the parties the said appeal was dismissed by affirming the judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar in connection with C.R. Case No. 238 of 2019, C.N.R. No. WBJP06-001776-2019, CIS 05 of 2019. 13.

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, learned counsel petitioner has submitted that the signature of the petitioner/complainant is also forged and the signature of the witnesses namely Nripen Karjee and Subin

Karjee is also forged and that they did not sign any sale deed as alleged as witness and furthermore the father name of said Nripen Karjee is also wrongly mentioned and the address of said Subin Karjee is also wrongly mentioned in the alleged sale deed. The petitioner came to know about the forged deed only on 14.08.2018 when she obtained a certified copy of the alleged deed from the ADSR, Alipurduar.

14.

It is further submitted that the Ld. Appeal Court has failed to consider the facts of the case and rejected the prayer of the petitioner and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 and affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar which is liable to be quashed and/or set aside.

15.

It is also stated that the alleged transfer took place in 1991 and the complain in the present case has been filed on 17.01.2019 (after 27 years). The complainant's case is that she came to know of the fraudulent transfer only on 14.08.2018, after a span of 27 years. 16.

An enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was directed by the learned Magistrate and on considering the report submitted by the police, dismissed the case under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The dispute between the parties is regarding an alleged transfer of land which is denied by the complaint and asserted by the accused.

17.

No Civil Case has been initiated for cancellation of the said deed. Whether the deed is forged, or otherwise is to be decided by a Civil Court

and only if proved to be forged while canceling the deed, the complaint shall be in a position to proceed with a criminal case with the said evidence adduced before the Civil Court.

18.

Considering the nature of dispute between the parties, with relates to private/property dispute, the following judgment of the Supreme Court is relied upon:- (a) In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/S Nepc India Ltd. & Ors., Appeal (crl.) 834 of 2002 decided on 20.07.2006, the Court considered the following point among the two points decided.

8. The High Court by common judgment dated 23.3.2001 allowed both the petitions and quashed the two complaints. It accepted the second ground urged by the Respondents herein, but rejected the first ground. The said order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals. On the rival contentions urged, the following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether existence or availment of civil remedy in respect of disputes arising from breach of contract, bars remedy under criminal law?

(ii) Whether the allegations in the complaint, if accepted on face value, constitute any offence under sections 378, 403, 405, 415 or 425 IPC ? Re : Point No. (i) :

9. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988 (1) SCC 692], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335], Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591], State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [1996 (8) SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC 269], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2000 (4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [2001 (8) SCC 645], and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd.

v.

Mohd.

Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC 122]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are :

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts

which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families.

There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed :

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.

Now in the lines of the judgment under reference let us see if the allegations in the complaint in the present case, if accepted on face value, constitute any office under Sections 406/467/468/420/120B/34 of IPC.

19.

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, lays down:- "406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec. 406 are as follows:-

(1) Mens rea is essential ingredient of offence.

(2) There must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract.

(3) The accused was entrusted with the property or domain over it.

(4) He dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use such property;

(5) He dishonestly used or disposed of that property or willfully suffered any other person to do so in failure of- (a) Any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or (b) Any legal contract made touching upon the discharge of such trust."

20.

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, defines:- "405. Criminal breach of trust.-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust"."

21. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s Nepc India Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) the Supreme Court also held:- "18. In Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri v. State of Travancore, Cochin [AIR 1953 SC 478], this Court held :

" to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust, it is essential that the prosecution must prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. It has to be established further that in respect of the property so entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal in violation of a direction of law or legal contract, by the accused himself or by someone else which he willingly suffered to do. It follows almost axiomatically from this definition that the ownership or beneficial interest in the property in

respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit."

[Emphasis supplied] In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay [AIR 1956 SC 575], this Court reiterated that the first ingredient to be proved in respect of a criminal breach of trust is 'entrustment'. It, however, clarified :

".. But when S. 405 which defines "criminal breach of trust" speaks of a person being in any manner entrusted with property, it does not contemplate the creation of a trust with all the technicalities of the law of trust. It contemplates the creation of a relationship whereby the owner of property makes it over to another person to be retained by him until a certain contingency arises or to be disposed of by him on the happening of a certain event."

19. The question is whether there is 'entrustment' in an hypothecation? Hypothecation is a mode of creating a security without delivery of title or possession. Both ownership of the movable property and possession thereof, remain with the debtor. The creditor has an equitable charge over the property and is given a right to take possession and sell the hypothecated movables to recover his dues (note : we are not expressing any opinion on the question whether possession can be taken by the creditor, without or with recourse to a court of law). The creditor may also have the right to claim payment from the sale proceeds (if such proceeds are identifiable and available). The following definitions of the term 'hypothecation' in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (Third (2005) Edition, Vol.2, Pages 2179 and 2180) are relevant :

"Hypothecation : It is the act of pledging an asset as security for borrowing, without parting with its possession or ownership. The borrower enters into an agreement with the lender to hand over the

possession of the hypothecated asset whenever called upon to do so. The charge of hypothecation is then converted into that of a pledge and the lender enjoys the rights of a pledgee."

'Hypothecation' means a charge in or upon any movable property, existing in future, created by a borrower in favour of a secured creditor, without delivery of possession of the movable property to such creditor, as a security for financial assistance and includes floating charge and crystallization of such charge into fixed charge on movable property. (Borrowed from section 2(n) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002)"

But there is no 'entrustment of the property' or 'entrustment of dominion over the property' by the hypothecatee (creditor) to the hypothecator (debtor) in an hypothecation. When possession has remained with the debtor/owner and when the creditor has neither ownership nor beneficial interest, obviously there cannot be any entrustment by the creditor.

20. The question directly arose for consideration in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta [1996 (5) SCC 591]. It related to a complaint against the accused for offences of criminal breach of trust. It was alleged that a floating charge was created by the accused debtor on the goods by way of security under a deed of hypothecation, in favour of a bank to cover credit facility and that the said goods were disposed of by the debtor. It was contended that the disposal of the goods amounted to criminal breach of trust.

Negativing the said contention, this Court after stating the principle as to when a complaint can be quashed at the threshold, held thus :

".a serious dispute has been raised by the learned counsel as to whether on the face of the allegations, an offence of criminal breach of trust is constituted or not. In our view, the expression 'entrusted with property' or 'with any dominion over property' has been used in a wide sense in Section 405, I.P.C. Such expression includes all cases in which goods

are entrusted, that is, voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and dishonestly disposed of in violation of law or in violation of contract. The expression 'entrusted'

appearing in Section 405, I.P.C. is not necessarily a term of law. It has wide and different implications in different contexts. It is, however, necessary that the ownership or beneficial interest in the ownership of the property entrusted in respect of which offence is alleged to have been committed must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit. The expression 'trust' in Section 405, I.P.C. is a comprehensive expression and has been used to denote various kinds of relationship like the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, bailor and bailee, master and servant, pledger and pledgee........."

22.

The Supreme Court in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2019(arising out of SPL (Crl.) No. 5223 of 2018), on 3 January, 2019, held that :- "11.Coming to the aspect of quashing of the charges, it is well settled that such exercise needs to be undertaken by the High Court in exceptional cases. It is also well settled that the framing of charges being initial stages in the trial process, the court therein cannot be the decision of quashing the charge on the basis of the quality or quantity of evidence rather the enquiry must be limited to a prima facie examination[refer to State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, 1977 CrlLJ 1606].

12.Having observed the background principles applicable herein, we need to consider the individual charges against the appellant. Turning to Section 405 read with 406 of IPC, we observe that the dispute arises out of a loan transaction between the parties. It fails from the record that the respondent no.2 knew the appellant and the attendant circumstances before the lending the loan. Further, it is an admitted fact that in order to recover the aforesaid amount, the respondent no.2 had

instituted a summary civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The law clearly recognizes a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property. A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.

13. In this context, we may note that there is nothing either in the complaint or in any material before us, pointing to the fact that any property was entrusted to the appellant at all which he dishonestly converted for his own use so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 punishable under Section 406 of IPC. Hence, learned Magistrate committed a serious error in issuing process against the appellant for the said offence. Unfortunately, the High Court also failed to correct this manifest error.

14. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea.(See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168). I the case before us, admittedly, the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached the respondent no.2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, the respondent no.2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are take on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.

15. Moreover, this Court in a number of cases has usually cautioned against criminalizing civil disputes, such as breach of contractual

obligations[refer to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303]. The legislature intended to criminalize only those breaches which are accompanied by fruadulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements, which resulted in involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 of IPC.

16. However, the High Court appears to have been carried away by the moral element involved in the breach of promise and made certain observations. Being a policy consideration, such suggestions need to be restricted. The aforementioned observations of the High Court were not only unnecessary for the adjudication of this matter, but the same could have been understood as casting some kind of aspersions on the accused. This clearly reflected a loaded dice situation against the appellant herein."

23.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, lays down:- "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec. 420 are as follows:-

(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;

(2) (a) The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and

(c) in cases covered by second part of clause (a), the act or omission should be one which caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind or property.

The two essential ingredients of the offence under this section are - (A) Deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation, and (B) Inducing the person deceived to part with property."

24.

From the materials on record it is evident that the transaction between the parties is a civil dispute (alleged fraudulent transfer of land). The relief of the parties lies before a Civil Court. Thus, the ingredients required to constitute offenses under Sections 406/467/468/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code are prima facie not present against the petitioners.

25.

The revisional application being CRR 215 of 2022 is dismissed. 26.

The judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alipurduar in Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2021 affirming the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar in connection with C.R. Case No. 238/2019, C.N.R. No. WBJP06-0017762019, CIS 5 of 2019 being in accordance with law requires no interference.

27.

No order as to costs.

28.

All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

29.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

30.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

31.

Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)