In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

     MR. JUSTICE MD. ATABULLAH

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 13683 OF 2018

Tarekuzzaman and others......…Accused-petitioners 

-Versus-

Md. Rabiuyl Islam and another….….....Opposite parties Mr. Md. Tahshin Ahmed, Advocate

... .........For the accused petitioners None appears.......For the opposite parties

Mr. K.M. Masud Rumy, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard on: 03.06.2024, 09.06.2024 and 30.06.2024

Judgment on: The 28th of July, 2024 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused petitioners under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 829 of 2016 under sections 420/467/471 of the Penal Code  now  pending  in  the  Court  of  learned  Judicial Magistrate  and  Cognizance  Court  No.  1,  Panchagarh should not be quashed and/or such other or further order or  orders  passed  as  to  this  Court  may  seem  fit  and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, the Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings of the aforesaid C.R. Case No. 829 of 2016 for 6 (six) months from the date which was time to time extended by the Court.

For disposal of the Rule, the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That the opposite party No. 1 Md. Rabiul Islam as complainant filed a C.R. Case No. 829 of 2016 against the accused petitioners under sections 420/467/471 of the Penal Code, alleging inter alia that the scheduled land  was  originally  belonged  to  one  Gomaddi Mohammad, the great-grandfather of the complainant. The  complaint  acquired  the  case  land  by  way  of inheritance. At the time of the local survey, the accused petitioners  claimed  the  case  land  on  the  basis  of  the registered  purchased  deed  No.  960  dated  31.05.1956 executed by Samijuddin and handed over the photocopy of  the  said  registered  deed  to  the  complainant.  The complainant alleged that in order to grave the case land the  accused  petitioners  in  collusion  with  each  other created  the  aforesaid  forged  deed  executed  by Samijuddin, the grandfather of the complainant. Hence the  aforesaid  case  was  filed  against  the  accused petitioners under section 420/467/471 of the Penal Code. Thereafter,  accused  petitioners  appeared  before  the Court below and obtained bail. Thereafter, the accused petitioners  have  preferred  this  application  before  this Court  under  section  561A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding of the aforesaid case and obtained the instant Rule and stay.

 Mr. Md. Tahsin Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the  accused  petitioners  mainly  submits  that  a  case covering the offence under sections 467/468/471 of the Penal Code only be instituted by the concerned Court or by  its  formal  direction,  who  finds  the  document  as forged one and until and unless a document is proved to be forged by a competent Court the initiation of a case by  an  individual  private  person  questioning  the genuineity of the said document by passing the provision of sections 195(1)(C) of the CrPc is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of his contention he pointed out that in the instant case, there is a clear allegation against the accused petitioners for creating a forged document. The alleged document is not produced by the accused petitioners in any judicial proceeding and

the  complainant  is  a  private  person  and  as  such  the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

None appears for the opposite parties to oppose the Rule.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the  accused  petitioners  and  perused  the  materials  on record thoroughly.

On perusal of the petition of complaint, it transpires that the complainant claimed the case land on the basis of the inheritance. On the other hand, the accused petitioners claimed the said land on the basis of the registered purchase deed No. 960 dated 31.05.1956 which is alleged to be a forged document. So there is a clear allegation against the accused petitioners for committing the offence of a forged document.  Mere  allegation  of  a  forged  document  is  not enough unless it has been used in a judicial proceeding. Any allegation of such offence alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court should not be taken  lightly.  Rather  it  is  imperative  on  the  part  of  the concerned Court to deal promptly with such allegation and strictly  in  accordance  with  the  law  as  it  concerns  the administration  of  public  justice.  If  a  forged  document  is produced in a proceeding by a party, the Court will acquire the sole jurisdiction to make a complainant under section 195(1)(C)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.  The legislative intent in imposing prohibition against a private complaint  is  to  save  a  party  from  vexatious  prosecution. When  the  document  has  been  used  by  a  party  to  the proceeding the offenses fall very much within the ambit of section 195(1)(C) of the CrPc. No cognizance thereof can be taken except on a complaint by the Court. In the instant case, the alleged deed is not produced by the accused petitioners in any judicial proceeding as yet and as such the impugned proceeding in respect of the accused petitioners is liable to be quashed.

In such view of the aforesaid legal position, we find substances in the contention of the learned Advocate for the accused petitioners.

As a result, the Rule is made absolute.

The proceedings of C.R. Case No. 829 of 2016 under sections 420/467/471 of the Penal Code now pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate and Cognizance Court No. 1, Panchagarh is hereby quashed.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Md. Atabullah, J:

I agree