14.07.2026 Item no.6 Ct. No.237 AKG C.R.R. 2613 of 2025 Manas Kumar Saha & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Souren Chatterjee, Mr. Dhiman Banerjee Ms. Sulagna Sen ……for the Petitioners Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Subir Ganguly, Mr. Utsav Dutta …for the State Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sarthak Barman …for O.P. No. 2 The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed seeking quashing of Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 214 of 2023 dated April 27, 2023, registered under Sections 420/406/468/471/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabadwip, Nadia. The aforesaid police station case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioners on April 27, 2023. This Court is not inclined to permit the said proceedings to continue, as it appears that an investigation into the very same alleged incident had already been conducted in connection with Dum Dum 2 Police Station Case No. 926 of 2020 dated December 12, 2020, under Sections 420/406/468/469/471/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said investigation culminated in the submission of a Final Report treating the case as a mistake of fact. This Court is also of the view that the complaint in the present case fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged therein. The first FIR, being Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 926 of 2020 dated December 12, 2020, was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Biswambhar Saha. In the said complaint, Biswambhar Saha, who is the brother of opposite party no. 2, alleged, inter alia, as follows: Following the death of his father on August 9, 2017, the complainant and his sister discovered three title deeds executed in 1950, which revealed that they were co- owners of approximately twelve bighas of ancestral land. Photocopies of the said deeds were handed over to their cousin, Manas Kumar Saha (petitioner no. 1), for the purpose of verifying the status of the property. A few months thereafter, petitioner no. 1 informed the complainant and his family that the property was under the occupation of third parties and could only be sold for a nominal consideration. The complainant and his siblings rejected the proposal. Subsequently, in February 2020, 3 the complainant allegedly learnt that petitioner no. 1 had instead transferred approximately eight bighas of the ancestral property in favour of his wife, Sikha Saha (petitioner no. 2), on the strength of an allegedly forged title deed. Thereafter, the said property was allegedly sold to three purchasers, namely Padmini Sarkar, Aloke Kumar Sarkar, and Prohllad Pal, through separate registered deeds. The complainant further alleged that mutation of the property had been fraudulently obtained before the BL&LRO authorities by falsely depicting the appearance of his deceased father and the other co-sharers without issuing any notice to them. According to the complainant, the accused persons had acted in conspiracy to dishonestly misappropriate and transfer the ancestral property by using forged documents. When the complainant and his siblings protested, they were allegedly threatened with dire consequences. Complaints made before the ADM (LR), Nadia, the local police station, and the Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore, allegedly yielded no effective action. Accordingly, the complainant alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 469, 471, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR, an investigation was conducted by the Dum Dum Police 4 Station. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, dated October 19, 2021, was submitted treating the case as a mistake of fact. Thereafter, it appears that the present complaint was lodged on April 27, 2023, by Monoj Kumar Saha, opposite party no. 2, who is the brother of the original complainant, Biswambhar Saha. A bare perusal of the second FIR dated April 27, 2023, reveals that it is substantially a reproduction of the first FIR, the only additional allegation being that the subsequent purchasers entered into a development agreement in respect of the property in question with two persons, namely Santosh Kumar Nande and Bindu Santosh Kumar Nande. This Court finds considerable substance in the submission advanced by Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, that both the FIRs dated December 12, 2020, and April 27, 2023, relate to the very same alleged transfer of the land in question by the petitioners. The legal position governing the maintainability of a second FIR is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A second FIR (which is not a cross-case) in respect of the same offence, or different offences arising out of the same transaction, is not only 5 impermissible but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Where the offence forming the subject matter of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR, both sets of allegations are required to be treated as part of the first FIR, rendering the second FIR legally unsustainable. However, where the two FIRs relate to distinct incidents or separate transactions, a second FIR may be maintainable. Likewise, a second FIR may be permissible where, in the course of investigation of the first FIR, a larger conspiracy, not forming part of the original allegations, is subsequently disclosed. [See: T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348; Kim Wansoo v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 17; Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1; and Mahadev Govind Gharge v. LAO, (2011) 6 SCC 321.] This Court is also satisfied that the complaint, on its own showing, discloses a dispute which is essentially civil in nature and does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. In my considered view, Mr. Ahmed has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment, reported at (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar). The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below: 6 “13. The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. …….. 15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of “false documents”. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not 7 sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted. ……… 20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.” It is, therefore, evident that the allegations contained in the present complaint do not attract the provisions of Sections 467, 471, or 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This Court is further of the view that the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence 8 punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no allegation of entrustment of the property in question to the petitioners. On the contrary, the materials on record indicate that the petitioners asserted their own right, title, and interest over the property by virtue of a deed of gift executed in the year 1993 by the predecessor-in-interest of the co-sharers. Even if the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose the existence of any relationship whereby the property was entrusted to the petitioners to hold or retain on behalf of the complainant until its disposal by sale or otherwise. In the absence of the foundational requirement of entrustment, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is clearly not made out. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and is bereft of the essential ingredients of any criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In my considered view, Mr. Ahmed has rightly contended that opposite party no. 2 was fully aware of the outcome of Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 926 of 2020 dated December 12, 2020. Notwithstanding such knowledge, he proceeded to lodge the present complaint with a mala fide intention. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to permit the continuation of the 9 proceedings arising out of Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 214 of 2023 dated April 27, 2023. Accordingly, the said proceedings are hereby quashed. The quashing of the present criminal proceedings shall not preclude the parties from pursuing such civil or other remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. CRR 2613 of 2025 stands allowed. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)