Bharat Bhushan, J.@mdash1. Both these applications under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr.P.C.) stem from two different charge-sheets bearing numbers 199 of 2007 and 199-A of 2007 arising out of same Case crime No. 302 of 2007, Police Station Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar whereby applicants Moti Chand (vendor), Bhadai (margin witness), Jagan Nath (margin witness) and Satya Narain Shah (husband of purchaser have been chargesheeted under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 (in short, Registration Act) Police Station Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar.
2. It appears that applicant No. 2 Moti Chand sold his half share out of his agricultural property bearing plot No. 202 to applicant No. 1 Phoolmati located at northern side of whole plot. Applicant No. 3 Bhadai and applicant No. 4 Sri Jagan Nath acted as margin witnesses of the said sale-deed. It is stated that vendor Moti Lal (applicant No. 2) belongs to scheduled caste category and therefore, he was required to seek permission of the Collector to sell the said property in favour of applicant No. 1 Smt. Phoolmati, who does not belong to scheduled caste category. It is alleged that disputed sale-deed indicates that purchaser Smt. Phoolmati belongs to scheduled caste category. Sale-deed was executed and got registered under the provisions of Registration Act with this wrong averment.
3. Present case did not stem from the complaint of either vendor or purchaser or of witnesses but it was initiated by one Ramanand total stranger to the present transaction. Ramanand has not disclosed his interest in the disputed property. However, record discloses that half of plot No. 202 belonging to one Shaym Lal, brother of Moti Chand, vendor (accused/applicant No. 2) was also sold in different transaction. This earlier transaction also involved various litigations. Apparently, a half share of plot No. 202 owned by Shyam Lal was sold to one Singhasan on 29.8.2006 but before a sale-deed could be registered in favour of said purchaser, Shyam Lal perhaps changed his mind and sale-deed could not be registered and same plot was sold to Ramanand, respondent No. 2 (complainant in this case) after two days i.e. on 31.8.2006.
4. Complainant/respondent No. 3 Ramanand transferred his share of plot No. 202 through sale-deed dated 16.3.2010 in favour of one Kailash Behari Pandey but sale-deed dated 16.3.2010 was held to be void as permission for sale taken by Ramanand was cancelled by Collector, Kushi Nagar vide order dated 12.8.2011. This order was confirmed up to the stage of Board of Revenue.
5. But, admittedly, Ramanand, complainant has nothing to do with the half share of plot No. 202 of Moti Chand (vendor in this case). Though, later on, it was argued by his counsel that present sale-deed, in addition to making of wrong averment about caste of purchaser also gave misleading boundaries and some portion of property of original owner, namely, Shyam Lal was also made part of this present sale-deed executed by Moti Chand. Though this allegations is absent from the contents of First Information Report (in short, FIR).
6. It is pertinent to point-out that one Kailash Behari Pandey had also filed application No. 365 of 2006 of similar contents under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure SA A-3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 6.8.2012. This application with similar allegations was rejected by learned Magistrate on the ground that no cognizable offence is made out. But after almost more than a year, complainant Ramanand lodged the present FIR dated 26.6.2007. The matter was investigated and two charge sheets, one bearing No. 199/2007 submitted against Moti Chand (vendor), Smt. Phoolmati (purchaser), Bhadai (margin witness), Jagan Nath (margin witness). Subsequently, another charge-sheet bearing No. 199-A/2007 was filed against Satya Narain, husband of purchaser for the same offence. Learned Magistrate took cognizance in both charge-sheets. This cognizance and subsequent criminal proceedings are under challenge before this Court in aforesaid Applications under section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Heard Sri L.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.S. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
8. A perusal of contents of FIR and available evidence would reveal that at best, there are only two allegations; one that purchaser did not belong to scheduled caste category and second that a wrong averment about her caste was made in the disputed sale-deed. If oral argument of learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is also taken into account, then second allegation is that some portion of property of Shyam Lal (original owner) located on southern side has been shown as part of this present disputed sale-deed. Before embarking to discuss the allegations as well as evidence made available in support thereof, it is pertinent to point out that present complaint has not been initiated either by vendor or purchaser or by attesting witnesses. It is also pertinent to point out that allegation regarding wrong boundaries was not made in the FIR. It is also necessary to point out that one Satya Narain Shah, who had been chargesheeted in the subsequent charge sheet No. 199-A/2007 in same crime number has nothing to do with the disputed sale-deed. He is neither vendor nor purchaser nor attesting witness in the said sale-deed.
9. Applicants have been chargesheeted under sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC and section 82 of Registration Act. We have to examine whether ingredients of aforesaid sections are available in the instant case or not.
10. Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Forgery is sine-qua-non of offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Making of false document or false electronic record or part thereof is condition precedent for offence of forgery. Perual of section 464 IPC (making of a false document) demonstrates that a person is said to have made false document if; (a) he executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (b) he altered and tempered a document; or (c) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in control of this faculties.
11. Coming back to the facts of present case, it is apparent that applicant Moti Chand sold his property to Smt. Phoolmati. Moti Chand did not impersonate anybody or altered or tempered any document or played deception on complainant. There is no allegation on record much less evidence that execution of sale-deed by Moti Chand in favour of Phoolmati involved forgery of documents or it discloses any intention of grabbing the property of the complainant. Even if a person executes a document transferring property, disclosing such property as his own, it can not be termed as forgery. Moti Chand or Phoolmati did not impersonate anybody. If Moti Chand was selling property to the purchaser of his choice, there was no question of any forgery. Even if any property is sold by a person claiming ownership, which is not his, without impersonating or claiming that he has been authorized by someone else, the execution of such document can not be termed as false document in terms of Section 464 IPC.
12. If allegations and evidence even prima facie do not disclose preparation or execution of false document, as defined under Section 464 IPC, then there is no question of forgery. If ingredients of forgery are absent, then offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are not made out at all.
13. Sections 419, 420 IPC
To constitute an offence under sections 419, 420 IPC, the allegations must disclose ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC. Section 415 talks of fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived. Meaning thereby that there must be not only be cheating but accused should also have been dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security or anything signed or sealed which is capable of being converted into a valuable property. Valuable security is defined under section-30 IPC. In the present case, sale-deed was executed transferring a property claiming ownership thereof. If any deception has been played upon purchaser with intention of cheating, then the purchaser may claim that vendor has cheated him. But a stranger to the transaction cannot bring a criminal action either against the vendor or vendee. As far as attesting witnesses, namely, applicant Bhadai and Jagan Nath are concerned, no criminal action can be brought against them for correctly identifying vendor or vendee. Complainant has not levelled any allegation of impersonation. In any case, law is well settled that recital in a deed do not bind the attesting witnesses. (L. Suraj Bhan and others versus Hafiz Abdul Khaliq , AIR (31) 1944 Lahore 1; Pandurang Krishnaji versus M. Tukaram and others , AIR 1922 PC; Banga Chandra Dhujr Biswas and another versus Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chowdhuri and others, AIR 1926 PC page 110).
14. Record reveals that there is no allegation that vendor tried to deceive the complainant either by making a false or misleading representation. There is no allegation of fraudulent and dishonest inducement either. There was no delivery of property. In fact, complainant is neither an aggrieved person for the purpose of Section-419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC or victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. Further, complainant has not been defrauded in any manner. Vendor or vendee did not enter into any transaction with him. If incorrect boundaries are shown in the sale-deed executed by Moti Chand, then this dispute can not be settled by criminal litigation. It has to be adjudicated by Civil Court/revenue court. Similarly, if purchaser does not belong to a particular category, as required under the law, obviously this dispute also can not be adjudicated by criminal court. It has to go to a proper forum. Consequences of selling of property by a person of scheduled caste category to a person of non-scheduled caste without prior permission of competent authority are different. They have been delineated under Section 167 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short, ZA & LR Act). It does not entitle a stranger to initiate criminal proceedings against vendor or vendee. Section-157-A of ZA & LR Act imposes restriction on transfer of land by the members of Scheduled Caste category to non-scheduled caste persons. A sale-deed executed by Scheduled Caste person without obtaining permission of Collector is void and land automatically vests in the State Government (Hari Singh versus Gaon Sabha, 2005(1) RJ 714). If the vendor is a member of Scheduled Caste but vendee does not belong to said caste, then transfer may be in breach of Section 157-A of ZA & LR Act and same will invite consequences specified under section 167 of ZA & LR Act. But a third person can not initiate criminal action either against vendor or vendee under section 420 IPC.
15. Section-82 Registration Act
Chargesheet has also been submitted under Section 82 of Registration Act on the ground that certain false statements have been made or wrong map has been shown. I am afraid, prosecution under section 82 of the Registration Act is only permissible under the provisions of Section-83 of the same Act, which provides that prosecution for an offence under the Registration Act can be commenced by an order with the permission of Inspector General (Registration) or Sub Registrar in whose territory, district or Sub District, as the case may be, offence has been committed. It is, therefore, clear that offence under Section-82 of Registration Act can only be initiated if registering officer in his official capacity initiates prosecution on his satisfaction regarding false averments. Bare perusal of Sections-82 and 83 of Registration Act would reveal that no criminal action can be brought against vendor or purchaser and attesting witnesses on complaint filed by a total stranger. The contents of FIR and available material do not disclose that any criminal offence was committed. Entire dispute, if any, is of civil in nature. Ordinarily, no criminal proceeding can be initiated for enforcement of contractual obligations. In any case, there is no contractual obligations between accused persons and complainant. Present dispute cannot be adjudicated by criminal court. The impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.
16. Accordingly, both the Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed and charge-sheet Nos. 199/2007 and 199-A/2007 and subsequent criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.
17. A copy of this order be also placed in records of Application U/s. 482 No. - 20500 of 2012.
18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court through District Judge, Kushi Nagar within two weeks.
