Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 – Allegation that respondent nos.1 and 2, along with their uncles, have attempted to defraud their aunts by creating a forged family tree and partition deed with a motive to gain all the monetary award for a land bypassing the appellant and her sisters – Two complaint cases – Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court and the criminal proceedings against them in both the complaint cases, whereby they were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of IPC, were quashed – Correctness:
Held: It is clear from the facts that a prima facie case for criminal conspiracy and cheating exists against respondent nos.1 and 2 – The High Court could not find any justification to deny that respondents misrepresented the family tree – The Court itself has acknowledged that respondents were bound to disclose the names of daughters of KGY in the family tree – Considering the fact that both the partition deed and the family tree were used in gaining the monetary compensation awarded for the land, it is necessary that genuineness of both the documents is put to trial – As far as, the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit is concerned, no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit – The pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons – Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of KGY, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of KGY, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question – Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the motive of respondents – All the above factors suggest that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant – Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside – The Trial Court directed to continue its proceedings against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance to law. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 23, 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.