02 of 2021 and 47 of 2021, by which the High Court quashed Giridih(T)P.S.Case No.217 of 2020 @ FIR No.04797769 dated 5 November, 2 |Crl.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/high-courts-analysis-on-interference-with-arbitral-awards/
Independently, the District Deputy Registrar, Giridih initiated an inquiry in terms of Circular No.15/R(Miscellaneous)Public Applications-04/16 dated Nil resulting in the passing of an order, prima facie holding A-1 to have forged the PoA impersonating Naveen Kumar Rai, leading to the execution of a sale deed which document also stood registered with the very same Authority. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows the FIRs to have been quashed on the following counts:-
(a)
The original owner had already initiated civil proceedings; (b) No act of “ criminality ” can be said to be “ made out ”; (c) Initiation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of Court (“ perhaps meant as law ”); (d) The alleged action “ appears ” to be “ a civil wrong ” in relation to which, “ with respect to the same cause of action ” the title suit is pending.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/conviction-modified-to-fine-case-summary/
Case No.217 of 2020 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, is hereby, quashed…” 6. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment.- Whoever-
(a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act; or (b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or (c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (d) abets anything made punishable by this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. (1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub- district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed.
For the offence of cheating, for instance, this Court has enumerated certain factors to be considered in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. The Court’s observation that because there is no order of the Inspector General, “ in spite of that this FIR has been lodged by the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih, which is against Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 ” as demonstrated (supra) is completely divorced from the text of the Section itself, for, it provides, as 7 |Crl.
Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Case Title: NAVIN KUMAR RAI Vs. SURENDRA SINGH (2024 INSC 116)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000890-000891 / 2024
