Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report dated 25.1.2009 was got lodged by respondent No. 3 Rabindra Nath Kalita at Police Station, Panbazar, District Kamrup, Assam. It is alleged in said report that Kaustav K. Kalita is minor son of respondent No. 3. He (Kaustav K. Kalita), respondent No. 4 Rishi Raj Borgohain, and respondent No. 5 Yuva Raj Borgohain are pattadars-inpossession of the land measuring 11 Bigha 2 Kathas 12 Lachas of Patta No. 56, situated in Village Kamarkuchi under Panbari Mouza of the District. It is further alleged that the complainant (respondent No. 3) came to know that appellant Ganga Dhar Kalita and one Birendra Kumar Das have sold the above mentioned land in favour of Sewali Oza, Kabindra Oza and Kaifie Oza. On enquiry, according to the complainant, it was discovered that Ganga Dhar Kalita (appellant) has fraudulently got executed a power of attorney Deed No. 2062 dated 11.4.2006 by forging Page 3 signatures of Kaustav K. Kalita, Rishi Raj Borgohain and Yuva Raj Borgohain. Rishi Raj Borgohain (respondent No. 4) is also signatory in the First Information Report given by respondent No. 3 to the police. On the above complaint, police appears to have registered the case as crime No. 25 of 2009 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 420, 471/34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The present appellant challenged the First Information Report by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature. It is also pleaded by the appellant that a title suit No. 477 of 2008 has already instituted by Birendra Kumar Das. It is also urged that another suit No. 293 of 2009 was filed before the Court of Civil Judge No. 3, Guwahati, by the informants (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) seeking cancellation of the power of attorney in question.

5. However, after hearing the parties, the High Court was not impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Page 4 accused (appellant), and observed that since the allegations made against him make out a cognizable offence, and the allegations are serious in nature, as such, it declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings. The High Court further opined that the complainant has not acted mala fide.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that since there are two suits already instituted, one filed by Birendra Kumar Das and another filed by the complainants, as such, the criminal proceedings in the matter are nothing but abuse of process of law.

7. In response to the above, learned counsel for the respondents/complainants drew our attention to the copy of order dated 15.11.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 477 of 2008, i.e., one instituted by Birendra Kumar Das. Copy of said order, which is annexure A-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, shows that Title Suit NO. 477 of 2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution. There is nothing on the record to suggest that after dismissal of the Page 5 suit on 15.11.2011 said suit was restored. In view of said fact, it can be said that the appellant has attempted to suppress the fact that Title Suit No. 477 of 2008 has been dismissed. As to the pendency of the suit No. 293 of 2009 filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Kaustav K. Kalita, it is true that they have sought cancellation of general power of attorney Deed No. 2062 of 2006 dated 11.4.2006 purporting to have been executed in respect of the property in question.

8. The allegations made in the First Information Report disclose that there are serious allegations against the appellant (accused) that he fraudulently got executed the power of attorney, and Kaustav K. Kalita was minor (aged nine years) on the date when the deed was said to have been signed by him. It is also alleged that respondent No. 5 Yuva Raj Borgohain, who is said to be another person who executed the power of attorney, was away from India on the date of alleged execution of the Deed. Page 6

9. In Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], this Court has held that if the allegations in the First Information Report are not frivolous, mala fide or vexatious, it cannot be simply quashed for the reason that civil suit is also pending in the matter. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 33 of said case are reproduced below: -

10. No doubt, where the criminal complaints are filed in respect of property disputes of civil in nature only to harass the accused, and to pressurize him in the civil litigation pending, and there is prima facie abuse of process of law, it is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. However, the powers under the section are required to be exercised sparingly. In Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and others[2], this Court has observed as under: - “This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at

Page 9 their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction.”

11. Having considered the law laid down by this Court, as above, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the allegations made against the accused, particularly that one of the persons said to have executed the power of attorney was minor, and another was away from India, in our opinion, even if the civil suit was instituted by the complainant, the High Court committed no error of law in declining to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant in the present case.

12. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, we clarify that the observations made in our order would not be read to influence the civil or criminal proceedings pending between the parties. Page 10 ………………….....…………J. [Dipak Misra].………………….……………J. New Delhi; [Prafulla C. Pant] April 13, 2015.