JUDGMENT
(1) Being aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges against the petitioners under sections 418/468/471/448/34 Ipc, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as the “Code”) for quashing the same and for discharging them from the case. The facts in short which are relevant for purposes of deciding the present petition are :
(2) That on March 1, 1988 one Jagjit Singh, the complainant filed a complaint with the police alleging inter alia that he was the owner of land being plot No.46 measuring 150 sq.yds. in khasra No-502, village Nawada, Bhagwati Garden, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi and that the same had been unauthorisedly occupied by some persons. On the basis of the investigation carried out by the police on the said complaint, it came to its knowledge that the petitioners had occupied the same and Fir under Section 448/34 Indian Penal Code was, therefore, registered against them. On further investigation it came to the notice of the police that one Mr.Naval Singh was the owner of this land; he had sold it in May. 1974 as plot No.46 measuring 150 sq.yds. to Jagjit Singh, the complainant, and in 1986/87 he sub-divided the same plot into two parts and sold one plot No.54 to the petitioners in the same khasra number; that in khasra No.506 there was no plot being No.54 and the said plot No.54 was in khasra No.502 and it was the same plot which had earlier been sold by Naval Singh to the complainant Jagjit Singh; on the basis of the sale deed executed by Naval Singh in favour of the petitioners, they had occupied it unauthorisedly. As Naval Singh is alleged to have sold the plot on the basis of forged documents, a case under section 420/468/471/448/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges under section 418/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code against Naval Singh while against the petitioners charge under section 448/34 Indian Penal Code was framed.
(3) Being aggrieved by the order of Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners filed a petition under section 397 of the Code before the Court of Sessions which was assigned for disposal to the Additional Sessions Judge. The order of the Metropolian Magistrate was challenged mainly on the ground that no case held been made out against the petitioners as they were the bonafide purchasers of the property being plot No.54 in khasra No.506 and that the plot of the complainant was other than the plot which had been sold to them by Naval Singh. It was, therefore, stated that they could not be said to be trespassers. It was also stated in the revision petition that according to the complainant himself the petitioners had occupied the plot on 2nd December, 1986 and the complaint was lodged on March 12, 1988. The offence, if any, under section 488 was, therefore, allegedly barred by time in as much as the same was punishable for a maximum period of one year and the period of limitation for the Court to take cognizance of the said offence was one year from the date of the alleged commission of offence and admittedly the complaint itself having been filed after a period of almost two years, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the same and the petitioners were, therefore, entitled to be discharged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the petitioners and prosecution instead of quashing the charge directed the charge to be framed against the petitioners under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code Being aggrieved by this order of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(4) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the bonafide purchaser of the property for consideration was entitled to take possession of the plot and nothing has been alleged either in the complaint or in any other document that he was a party to the forging of documents which could enable the Court to frame the charge against him under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code Under section 468 Indian Penal Code a person who commits forger intending the forged documents to be used for purposes of cheating is liable to be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and it is on this basis that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the cognizance was within limitation as the offence under section 468 was punishable for a period of more than one year.
(5) It is not in dispute that the original complaint of. the complainant does not mention the names of the persons who had alleged to have trespassed over the plot of land being plot No.46 in khasra No.502 alleged to have been purchased by him from Naval Singh. It was on the basis of investigation that the police found out that the plot being No.54 in khasra No.506 was alleged to have been sold by Naval Singh to the petitioners who were in possession thereof. Subsequently it also came to the notice of the police on investigation that plot No.46 in khasra No.502 and plot No.54 in khasra No.506 was one and the same plot. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had recorded the statement of Jagjit Singh and Naval Singh. Jagjit Singh in his statement has given the description of the plot stating inter alia as to what was on its south, east and west. Naval Singh in his statement stated that the plot of Jagjit Singh was in khasra No.502 which was different from the plot No.54 in khasra No.506. It was further stated that he was prepared to hand over possession of plot No.46 in khasra No.502 of the complainant Jagjit Singh. There is nothing on record either in the statement of any of the witnesses recorded under section 161 by the police or in the investigation which had been carried out by it that the petitioners were party to the alleged forgery of documents by which plot No.54 was transferred in their name by Naval Singh. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that plot No.54 in khasra No.506 is the same plot as plot No.46 in khasra No.502, in my opinion, there is nothing on record to hold that the petitioners had forged any document to take possession of the said plot. On the other hand in case the contention of the complainant is accepted that both the plots are the same, the petitioners themselves appear to have been cheated. It is not understood as to how learned Additional Sessions Judge had given a finding that the petitioners had “got documents Executed fraudulently and dishonestly in order to deprive the rightful owner of the property. They had the common intention and in furtherance of their common intention they got these documents prepared and they even used these documents knowingly well that these documents are fraudulent and fabricated”. These findings are not supported by any documents or statement of any person on record. It is not even the case of the prosecution or the complainant that the petitioners were instrumental in getting the documents executed fraudulently in order to deprive the rightful owner of the property. In my view, there was no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judg to arrive at the above findings.
(6) Learned Additional Sessions Judge had also mentioned in his order that Naval Singh in his statement has given the boundaries of plot No.46 in khasra No.502 as the same as boundaries of plot No.54 in khasra No.506. I have gone through the statement of Naval Singh and I do not find any such admission as has been mentioned in the order of Additional Sessions Judge. The statement of Naval Singh is that both the plots are different and he was even prepared to hand over possession of plot No.46 in khasra No.502 to the complainant Jagjit Singh.
(7) In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to sustain the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in so far as it contains a direction to the Metropolitan Magistrate to frame charge against the petitioners under section 468 of the Code.
(8) The Additional Sessions Judge has not given any finding as to whether the Metropolitan Magistrate could have framed the charge under section 448 Indian Penal Code keeping in view the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where a period of limitation has been prescribed for cognizance of offences. I, therefore, allow this petition and set -aside the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 11th March, 1996 and remand this case back to the Additional Sessions Judge for deciding afresh the revision petition considering that charge had been framed against the petitioners only under section 448 of the IPC.
(9) Petition stands disposed of.