Judgment:
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.
1. All the three contending parties are represented by their respective Learned Counsels, who have been heard at length.
2. By the instant Revisional Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the Petitioner has prayed for 'setting aside' (presumably 'for quashing') all the relevant proceedings, being G. R. Case No. 1340 of 1992, arising out of Barasat P.S., Case No. 546 dated 12,8.92, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Barasat mainly on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. is the subject-matter of a civil suit, which are quite unfounded, and that the dispute is very much civil in nature, amongst other grounds.
3. The Petitioner contends that he had purchased the disputed land from one Susanta Sen alias Khoka Sen, son of Satyendra Nath Sen of Bongaon under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 29th June, 1990. Immediately after purchasing the said property he has filed a suit being Title Suit No. 66 of 1992 before the learned Munsif at Bongaon, District 24-Parganas (North), for eviction of the defendant therein, Debabrata Chatterjee, therefrom on the allegation that he is a trespasser in respect thereof. The allegation in the F.I.R. in the aforesaid Criminal Case is that the said Deed of Conveyance is a forged one since Kalyan Sen, the legal heir of Satyendra Nath Sen, did not execute the said Deed. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the Deed in question regarding the disputed property has been manufactured by the Petitioner herein in his favour, executed by one Susanta Sen alias Khoka Sen, who is not the legal heir of Satyendra Nath Sen, the owner of the disputed property.
4. On a perusal of the copy of the F.I.R. on record it would clearly appear that it has been specifically alleged therein that the disputed property originally was owned by Satyendra Nath Sen, son of Late Mahendra Nath Sen of 14-B, Bhupen Bose Avenue. The said Satyendra Nath Sen had died in the year 1963, while he was a practising Advocate, leaving behind his only son Kalyan Sen and widow. Kalyan Sen was then in Germany for higher studies. The Petitioner-accused No. 1, Goutam Chatterjee, and his brother-in-law, the accused No. 2 Debabrata Chatterjee, had hatched up a plan and made criminal conspiracy with each other, along with the other accused persons named in the F.I.R., with a view to cheat the father of the informant and for claiming false title to' the disputed property, had created a false and forged valuable security, namely, the relevant Deed of Conveyance, by false personation of one Susanta Sen alias Khoka Sen, alleged to be the son of late Satyendra Nath Sen. They used the name of Susanta Sen alias Khoka Sen and they did not know the actual name of the son of Late Satyendra Nath Sen, whose name is Kalyan Sen, and not Susanta Sen alias Khoka Sen. On the basis of the said false and forged Deed of Conveyance the accused No. 1 Goutam has instituted a false suit, being Title Suit No. 66 of 1992, against his brother-in-law, the accused No. 2 Debabrata, for his eviction from the disputed property on the allegation that he is a trespasser in respect thereof.
5. The F.I.R. being what it is, as indicated above, it would be difficult to hold that it does not make out or disclose any; offence. Indeed, it does. The Petitioner's contention in paragraph 12 of the Revision Application that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are quite unfounded is indeed a matter to be considered during the trial of the case upon evidence, and cannot certainly be pre-judged at this stage. The allegations made in the F.I.R. do neither seem to suggest that the dispute is of civil nature as the same, prima facie seems to make out a criminal offence. The F.I.R. being what it is, the relevant proceedings could scarcely be quashed at this stage on the ground that the same does not disclose any offence, as sadly and vainly sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioner.
6. Realising the difficulty somewhat tardily, the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner had sought to submit that in view of the pendency of the civil suit, being Title Suit No. 66 of 1992 before the Learned Munsif at Bongaon, the relevant criminal proceedings, at any rate, should be stayed till the disposal of the said suit. But the said submission as well seeks to me to be entirely ill-made and absolutely disingenuous. The matters-in-issue in the said Civil Suit and those in the aforesaid criminal proceedings appear to be entirely different. In the aforesaid Civil Suit, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has prayed for eviction of the defendant-accused No. 2 from the disputed premises on the! allegation that he is a trespasser in respect thereof. The issue to be framed and decided in the said suit is whether the defendant therein is a trespasser in respect of the disputed property or not. In the nature of the said Suit, the Court could not be called upon to decide question of title. And, having regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the matter for consideration in the relevant criminal case is whether the relevant Deed of Conveyance is a forged and fabricated one, as alleged, and whether the accused named therein had taken part in the commission of the alleged offence. The matters-in-issue in the aforesaid Civil Suit and in the relevant criminal proceedings before us not being the same or identical, but being entirely different, there could neither be any question of staying the relevant criminal proceedings till the disposal of the aforesaid Civil Suit. The Petitioner's belated prayer for staying the relevant criminal proceedings till the disposal of the aforesaid Civil Suit could not be entertained as such.
7. On my perusal of the copy of the F.I.R. on record I find that the allegations therein are too grave to be lightly discarded. The Learned Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that he has. brought the ease diary in connection with the relevant case from which it would appear that the investigation of the relevant case had proceeded to a considerable extent, and quite some materials in connection with the alleged offence have been collected by the Investigating Agency. On my look to the case diary produced during the hearing, I also noted that there has been quite some progress in investigation. I had also found a copy of the C.S.--Record of Rights: in the case diary wherefrom it appears that the disputed property had been recorded in the name of Satyendra Nath Sen, soni of late Mahendra Nath Sen, lending point to the allegations made in the F.I.R. The case needs to be thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Agency to unearth the truth in the nature of the allegations made therein.
In the premises above, the relevant criminal proceedings could neither be quashed nor stayed at this stage to the prejudice of the investigation.
In the result, the Revisional Application fails and is rejected. The Learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the relevant proceedings.
I, however, make clear that the observations hereinabove made by me Shall not weigh with the learned Magistrate while dealing with the matter upon materials to be presented before him by the Investigating Agency after conclusion of the investigation in the relevant case.