CRR 197 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta CRR/197/2024 JAHANURA BIBI Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. For the Petitioners : Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Adv. For the Opposite Party Nos. 2-5 : Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Adv. For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Adv. Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Bhattacharya, Adv. Heard on : 22.09.2026 Judgment on : 22.09.2026 Uploaded on : 23.09.2026 (In Court) CRR 197 of 2024 2 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.: - 1. The petitioner, being the de facto complainant filed this revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing an order dated November 29, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, District – Birbhum in G.R. 237 of 2022 corresponding to Labpur Police Station Case no. 40 of 2022 dated 16.03.2022 under Sections 467/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By the said impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of the de facto complainant for further investigation of the case since the investigating officer had submitted a final report as “Mistake of Fact” against the accused persons/Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 on 31.07.2023, being Final Report No. 108 of 2023. 3. The fact, in a nutshell, is that in the year 2012, the Petitioner’s mother, Sadeka Bibi, had transferred her property to the Petitioner/de facto complainant by a registered Deed of Gift (Hebanama) being No. 00300 of 2012, dated 1st February, 2012. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner that the said property was already registered by way of Deed of Gift CRR 197 of 2024 3 (Hebanama) vide Deed No. 9623 of 2008 in favour of her nephew, Golam Mortaja, who was a minor and his cousin, Sk. Asraful. 4. After knowing the said facts, she inquired about the registration of the Deed of Gift and discovered that the deed of gift was obtained based on forgery, as she did not go to the Office of the Suri District Sub-Registrar since she was seriously ill and could not attend the registry office. 5. She filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., when the police station refused to take the complaint, praying for direction to register an FIR treating the Complaint as a written complaint of the Petitioner. Based on such direction, an FIR had been registered being Labpur Police Station Case no. 40 of 2022 dated 16.03.2022 under Sections 467/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 6. After culmination of the investigation, the Police Officer filed a final report as “Mistake of Fact” against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 on 31.07.2023, being Final Report No. 108 of 2023, praying for discharge of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5, stating therein that the matter is entirely civil in nature and the petitioner may seek remedy before the learned Civil Court. The Petitioner filed a protest petition (Narazi Petition) against such Final Report and CRR 197 of 2024 4 prayed for further investigation, but her prayer was rejected; as such, the petitioner filed this revisional application praying for relief as aforesaid. 7. Heard arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record as well as the impugned order, this court finds that the Trial Court rejected her prayer for further investigation by noting observations as follows:- “Having heard both sides and perusing the record, it appears that complainant had filed this case with allegation against the accused that the deed executed in favour of the accused by her mother is a forged document which was executed in the year 2008 but at that time her mother Sadeka Bibi was serious ill and she was not able to go Suri DSR Office to execute the deed. On 01.02.2012 one deed was executed by her mother Sadeka Bibi in favour of the defacto-complainant and the LTI put by the Sadeka Bibi on the said deed in the year 2012 might be taken into consideration for proving the fact that LTI on the forged deed was not the LTI of Sadeka Bibi. Now, it appears after perusal of the materials in the CD attached with the record that during investigation it was revealed that case or cases were pending in between the parties relating to the land dispute. The alleged deed was allegedly executed in the year 2008 but said Sadeka Bibi died in the year 2013. It was alleged by the defacto-complainant that Sedeka Bibi was not able to go to registry office at Suri for her illness. But it is the case of the defacto- complainant that said Sadeka Bibi has executed a deed in her favour in the year 2012. There is no evidence to CRR 197 of 2024 5 show that Sadeka Bibi was not able to move in the year 2008 but was able to move in the year 2012. The facts are found to be a dispute in civil nature. So, the objection raised by the defacto-complainant is not entertained and accordingly Final Report occurred No:- 108/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 submitted by the IO is accepted” 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner files two original deeds along with photocopies in court today. Let the xerox copies of the deeds be taken on record. 9. Upon bare perusal of the said two deeds and comparing them, this Court finds that, at the time of registration of the Deed of Gift in the year 2008 in favour of the Opposite Party nos. 2 and 3, Sadeka Bibi, being the owner of the land, was very much present in the Registry Office since her photograph was taken in the Suri District Registry Office. She also put her LTI of 10 fingers. She herself presented the Gift Deed before the Registrar, and the same was noted by the Registrar. The photographs in both the deeds of gift are the same and identical. Therefore, the Petitioner’s contention for forgery or a forged deed appears baseless. Furthermore, Sadeka Bibi did not lodge a complaint during her lifetime. She expired in the year 2013. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint in the year 2022 after the lapse of 14 years. It CRR 197 of 2024 6 further appears from the record that two civil cases between the parties are still pending for adjudication. 10. A registered deed carries a strong legal presumption of validity and genuineness under the law. The onus rests heavily on the person who challenges the document registered before the Registering Officer to prove otherwise through cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the Petitioner’s allegations; as such it fails. 11. The impugned order dated November 29, 2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, District – Birbhum in G.R. 237 of 2022 corresponding to Labpur Police Station Case no. 40 of 2022 dated 16.03.2022 under Sections 467/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code under challenge calls for no interference. 12. Accordingly, CRR 197 of 2024 is dismissed. 13. Consequently, the connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned court below forthwith. CRR 197 of 2024 7 16. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of this judgment downloaded from the official website of this court. 17. The concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) Amalranjan