Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010192042017 2025:GAU-AS:2129 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./11/2017 ARUPAM H. JWAHIR and 6 ORS. S/O LT. ABDUL JWAHIR R/O WARD NO. 13, NATUN BAKURPARA P.O. GOALPARA, P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM. 2: PARVIN AKHTAR W/O MAKIBUR RAHMAN R/O BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI - 781009 P.O. BHARALUMUKH P.S. BHARALUMUKH DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3: MAKIBUR RAHMAN S/O LUTFAR RAHMAN R/O BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI - 781009 P.O. BHARALUMUKH P.S. BHARALUMUKH DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4: NESIMA ALAM JWAHIR W/O ARUPAM H. JWAHIR R/O WARD NO. 13 NATUN BAKURPARA P.O. GOALPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. 5: ACHIT KUMAR KAR S/O LT. AKHILESH KAR R/O WARD NO. 13 NATUN BAKURPARA P.O. GOALPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. 6: NAUSHAD KHAN S/O WARD NO. 13 NATUN BAKURPARA P.O. GOALPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. Page No.# 2/7 7: KAMAL KHAN S/O LT. ABDUL KAYAM R/O WARD NO. 13 NATUN BAKURPARA P.O. GOALPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM and ANR. 2:SAJJAD JWAHIR S/O LT. ABDUL WAHAB R/O WARD NO. 13 NATUN BAKURPARA P.O. GOALPARA P.S. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. PIN - 78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M DAS, MR.B D DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the petitioner : Mr. MP Choudhury, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P Borthakur, Additional Public Prosecutor Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.02.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV) 1 Heard Mr. MP Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 3/7 2 The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973 is filed for quashment of the proceeding arising out of CR case No. 183/2016 and order dated 03.05.2016 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Goalpara took cognizance of the offences under Section 467/468 IPC. 3 The fundamental ground of such challenge is that the subject matter of the dispute raised in CR case No. 183/2016 by the respondents are purely civil in nature inasmuch as the said respondent had already filed two title suits registered as T.S. No. 13/2012 and T.S. No. 18/2015 touching the same subject matter and therefore the subsequent filing of the impugned CR case is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and a civil dispute is being given a criminal colour. 4 Before dealing with the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, let this court first record the undisputed admitted facts as pleaded in the present petition. 5 The respondent No. 2 along with one Masuma Akhtar preferred a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Goalpara seeking declaration and partition in respect of the schedule land. The said suit was registered as TS No. 13/2012. The suit was filed on 18.07.2012. The present petitioners are defendants in the aforesaid suit. 6 The suit land described as schedule A,B,C,D and F was claimed to be owned and possessed by late Abdul Wahab, who was the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendants have been enjoying the suit properties as tenants in common and due to some dispute, which resulted in failure of mutual partition, the suit was filed. The defendant Page No.# 4/7 entered appearance in the suit and denied the contention and took a stand that the lands are exclusively owned and possessed by defendant No. 1 and defendants obtained this land and houses standing on schedule A(1) from her husband by way of Gift Deed dated 21.03.2008 and therefore, there is no question of making any partition of the land over schedule A(1) and schedule A(2). 7 Facing with such specific stand, the plaintiffs filed another suit, which was registered as TS No. 18/2015 seeking declaration and cancellation of Gift Deed and an Will. A specific stand was taken that the purported donor i.e. their father had never executed any Gift Deed and the signature of the executor is not genuine and that the defendant is trying to misappropriate all the property by way of creating a forged Deed. It was also stated that the said document is completely a manipulated document done by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It was also stated that the Gift Deed as mentioned by defendant in the written statement is forged and concocted document only and resultant Will executed by the mother in favour of the other defendants is meaningless and void and is not maintainable in the eye of law. 8 Simultaneously, the defendant has also contested the aforesaid suit by filing written statement by denying the allegations made. In the meantime, on 24.02.2016, the plaintiff filed the CR case No. 183/2016 and specific statement was made that the Gift Deed purportedly executed was done by forging the signature of their father. It was also stated that the complainant has already applied before the court to send the same to the handwriting expert. It was also specifically stated that on the basis of such forged Gift Deed another Will was Page No.# 5/7 manufactured. Accordingly, it was also stated that as the accused has forged the Gift Deed and Will they should be prosecuted for commission of offences. 9 In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel has advanced his argument as recorded hereinabove that the subject matter of CR Case No. 183/2016 arises out of pure civil dispute, which is pending adjudication. 10 Section 463 IPC defines forgery. As per the aforesaid provision, whoever makes any false document or part of a document, 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. 11 Section 467 IPC deals with forgery with valuable security or a will etc. It defines that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Page No.# 6/7 12 Now in the case in hand, the defendant in the first suit by filing written statement took a stand that the properties claimed by the plaintiff cannot be partitioned as such property was gifted by its original owner to his wife and the wife in turn has executed a Will in favour of the defendants. Thus, the title is claimed by the defendants on the basis of Gift Deed as well as the Will though beneficiaries of the Will was still alive and was a defendant. According to the respondents such Gift Deed as well as Will are forged one. Accordingly, after filing of the written statement and taking clue from such statement, the plaintiff has filed the second suit for declaration and cancellation of the alleged forged Deed and simultaneously lodged the criminal case. 13 There is no iota of doubt in the mind of this court that when the plaintiff alleges that his right in a immovable property is sought to be taken way by the defendants by creating forged Gift Deed and Will, the plaintiff shall have a right to seek a civil remedy of declaration of his right as well as cancellation of such alleged forged Deed which has been done by the plaintiff by filing second suit. However, when it is specifically alleged forgery inasmuch as when such alleged forgery is committed to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, it will definitely come within the provision of Section 463 IPC as recorded hereinabove. 14 Therefore, the plaintiff’s right in such a situation to file a complaint, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be taken away. This court is also of the unhesitant opinion that any person, who is affected by any forgery, which in this case, it is claimed to be on account of forged Gift Deed, the genesis of the allegation being that the Gift Deed Page No.# 7/7 was not executed by the donor, irrespective of a suit being filed for cancellation of such Gift Deed, a criminal complaint for offences punishable under Section 467/468 IPC would be maintainable. 15 A civil court cannot punish the accused for criminal offences of forgery. Therefore, though both the proceeding arises from the same cause of action, both are relatable to different aspects as recorded hereinabove and therefore the both suits and criminal complaint would be maintainable inasmuch as an individual who is affected by any forgery or cheating can initiate a criminal complaint for such offences. 16 In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, this court finds no merit in the present proceeding inasmuch as a bare reading of the complaint if it is taken on its face value, a case under Section 467/468 IPC is made out. 17 Therefore, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding of CR case No. 183/2016. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant