CR. MISC./77857/2018 of Bishwanath Prasad Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors on 13 August 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner, who is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 21(C) of 2004, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 1st, Supaul, in Cr. Rev. No. 60 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur, in complaint case No. 21(C) of 2004, whereby and whereunder the application of the accused persons-Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 herein filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and they have been discharged. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2016.

3. The case of the prosecution is that allegedly opposite party No.2 in collusion of the other accused persons has got a sale-deed registered in his favour by making someone impersonate as the father of the complainant and when the servants of the complainant were applying Urea over the standing wheat crops, the opposite party No. 2 along with two unknown persons came there and started abusing them to stop applying Urea and also slapped them and took away two sacs of Urea.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have forged a sale deed for which a civil proceeding before the competent court of civil jurisdiction has also been filed and the same is being persuaded, however, since the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have committed an offence, which has an element of initial deception, hence a criminal offence is also made out and the learned court below has committed grave error in allowing the application of the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. so also the revisional court, which has not interfered with the order allowing the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. & Ors. vs. M/s Biological E. Ltd & Ors, reported in 2000(3) PLJR (SC) 56, as also on the judgments of this Court in the case of Sureshwar Narayan Singh Vs. Hari Babu Pathak, reported in 2001(4) PLJR 649 and in the case of Sudhir Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2006(3) PLJR 307, to submit that even though a civil remedy is available in a case to the aggrieved party, but if there is also a criminal intent, then both civil proceeding and criminal prosecution can proceed side by side also.

4.2. It has further been submitted that the order allowing the discharge petition of the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 is not good on merits as well as on law and both the orders, the order allowing discharge petition and the revisional order refusing interference, are liable to be quashed.

4.3. It has further been submitted that when a prima facie case has been found against opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and from the facts and circumstances, sufficient grounds for proceeding against them are made out, both the learned court below as well as the revisional court has erred while passing the respective orders, warranting interference by this Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that there does not appear to be any infirmity in the impugned orders and the same need not be interfered with.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. What emerges out from the records is that for the same grievance, the petitioner has also filed a title suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, which is pending consideration before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The only grievance of the petitioner is with regard to preparation of forged sale-deed by the opposite party No.2 in his favour in collusion with other accused persons by impersonating the father of the petitioner. The sale-deed is registered one and there is presumption of genuineness and for that the petitioner has rightly approached the civil court of competent jurisdiction for cancellation of the sale- deed.

7.1. At this stage, this Court deems it expedient to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon forgery of certain documents has observed that the condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) for forgery making a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC. Section 464 IPC defines a false document as one made by impersonating another, by a person without authority, or by fraudulent alteration. A person who executes a sale-deed in his own name even if he claims ownership of the land, he does not own, has not made a false document, rather he has made his own document. The document is not false under Section 464 IPC since merely because the claim of title is disputed. While Section 420 IPC requires deception leading to the complainant to deliver property or enter into a contract. Thus, the judgment in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) lays a toolkit for separating criminal forgery from civil dispute.

8. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference by this Court.

9. This application, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pawan/- (Praveen Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 15.08.2026. Transmission Date 15.08.2026.