Smti. Ramzan Bibi v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CRR/48/2024 Smt. Ramzan Bibi Vs The State Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the State December 12, 2024 [AKB] Item Nos.2 1.

The petitioner has challenged the impropriety, illegality and irregularity of the order dated 12.09.2024 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair whereby he rejected the petition of defacto complainant for order of reinvestigation of the G. R. Case No. 2236 of 2018, Investigating Officer filed FRT twice in this case without proper investigation and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final reports as filed by the Investigating Officer on 12.08.2023 after reinvestigation of the case.

2.

The brief fact of the case is that K Hassan, P.K.Mohammed, Zakir Hussain, Khitija Bibi, Asiya Bibi, Sulekha Bibi and Ahmed Hussain were joint owner of land measuring 658 Sq.mtrs. under survey No. 179/1 and land measuring 383 Sq.mtrs. in survey No. 179/2.

3.

Subsequently, the land was sub divided and P.K.Mohammed, the husband of the petitioner got a share of an area measuring 117 Sq. mtrs under survey No. 1979/1/2 and

an area measuring 10 Sq.mtrs. in survey No. 1979/2/4. Subsequently, Abdul Quddus filed Other Suit No. 136 of 2011 against the P.K.Mohammed, husband of the petitioner and Kannu Swamy in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair, where he got decree for specific performance of contract on 31st May, 1997 and on 12.02.2010 against the defendants and direction was given to the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within 90 days. Plaintiff got a decree of permanent injunction as well.

4.

Thereafter, Abdul Quddus filed an application on 28.08.2013 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) for execution of a sale deed in respect of the land in survey No. 1971/1, inspite of 1979/1 in consonance of the direction of Court passed in the said Other Suit. When the error was detected, Abdul Quddus filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 on 29.04.2014 for amendment in description of property in the schedule of plaint, but the same was rejected on 26.04.2014 by the Trial Court. He made second application for same purpose, which was again rejected on 17.06.2014. In the meantime sale deed was placed before the Sub Registrar, Port Blair for registration of the land in survey No. 1979/1 on 22.07.2014, without any order as to amendment in description of property. The incorporation of 1979/1 in place of 1971/1 in the schedule of sale deed was made dishonestly and without any authority is amount to cheating and forgery. Subsequently, third amendment petition was filed before the Trial Court on

01.08.2014, which was allowed on 21.08.2014. Apparently the survey number was changed prior to getting order of amendment. The correction in survey number, without any authority, triggered petitioner to file written complaint to Aberdeen Police Station, on 28.11.2018 upon which FIR No. 671/18 was started under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was ended into FRT filed on 21.07.2019 as no crime of cheating and forgery was made out. On her protest, re-investigation was directed but FRT was filed on 12.08.2023 on the same findings. Petitioner made fresh prayer for the order of re-investigation on the ground that Investigating Officer ignored their finding that interpolation in description of property was made without any authority. Such interpolation amount to forgery and cheating. 5.

Section 415 of IPC defines the offence of cheating. The essential ingredients requires for cheating are :- I. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him.

II. The persons so deceive should be induce to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.

III. The persons so deceived should be internationally induce to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.

6.

Section 415 has requires dishonest intention as mental element to constitute an offence of cheating.

7.

While forgery is defined under Section 463 of IPC as follows:- "463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false documents [or false electronic record] or part of a document [or electronic record,] with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

8.

Learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer of petitioner for order of reinvestigation of this case as he finds that deed was executed on 22.07.2014 by Nazir of the Court on behalf of Abdul Quddus. Nazir verified the draft deed as presented before him for execution and he made necessary correction in the description of the property mentioned in the schedule of deed. There is no malice or dishonest intention of Abdul Quddus appears from the materials on record. So he decided that reinvestigation would not improve his case.

9.

Since Nazir of the Court executed the deed in favour of Abdul Quddus. When the deed was executed through the court, Nazir usual verify the draft deed before presenting it for registration. When defect came in his knowledge, he rectified it. 10.

The facts of this case unable to satisfy essential elements necessary to constitute an offence under any of the sections for cheating and forgery. So, in this respect the allegation of cheating and forgery would not lie against Abdul Quddus. 11.

Therefore I find that there is no irregularity, impropriety, illegality in the impugned order.

12.

Order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12.09.2024 is just and proper.

13.

Intervention of this Court is not require.

14.

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revisional application being CRR/48/2024 is dismissed.

15.

There is no order as to costs.

16.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)