Mt. Rampati Kuer And Ors. vs Jadunandan Thakur And Ors.

FACT OF THE CASE

• Jadunandan Thakur filed a money suit against Musammat Rampati Kuer and others based on a hand-note for Rs. 661 dated 4th May, 1958.
• The hand-note was proved to be a forgery as the revenue stamp on it was issued by the Government on 1st October, 1958.
• Jadunandan Thakur’s brother Ramshis Thakur filed a petition to dismiss the suit on the ground of payment of the claim under the hand-note.
• The suit was dismissed but Musammat Rampati Kuer and others filed an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for initiating criminal proceedings against Jadunandan Thakur, Ramkhelawan Thakur and Ramshis Thakur for offences of forgery and fraud.
• The Munsif ordered an inquiry under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and appointed a Commissioner to record evidence.
• The Commissioner submitted his report finding a prima facie case against the accused persons and recommending their prosecution.
• The Munsif accepted the report and filed a complaint against the accused persons before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
• The accused persons filed revision petitions before the District Judge challenging the order of the Munsif.
• The District Judge dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the order of the Munsif.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the Munsif had the jurisdiction to order an inquiry under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after dismissing the suit on the basis of a petition filed by the plaintiff’s brother.
2. Whether the Munsif had the power to file a complaint against the accused persons before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without recording any evidence himself or examining any witness.
3. Whether the District Judge had the authority to dismiss the revision petitions filed by the accused persons against the order of the Munsif without giving any reasons.

CONTENTION OF PLAINTIFF

1. The appellants were Jadunandan Thakur, Ramkhelawan Thakur and Ramshis Thakur, who were accused of forgery and fraud in the money suit filed by Jadunandan Thakur against Musammat Rampati Kuer and others.
2. The Munsif had no jurisdiction to order an inquiry under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after dismissing the suit on the basis of a petition filed by Ramshis Thakur, who was not a party to the suit.
3. The Munsif had no power to file a complaint against them before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without recording any evidence himself or examining any witness, and that he acted merely on the report of the Commissioner appointed by him.
4. The District Judge had no authority to dismiss their revision petitions against the order of the Munsif without giving any reasons, and that he acted in a mechanical manner without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

CONTENTION OF DEFENDANT

1. The respondent was Musammat Rampati Kuer, who was the defendant in the money suit filed by Jadunandan Thakur and who filed an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences of forgery and fraud.
2. The Munsif had the jurisdiction to order an inquiry under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after dismissing the suit on the basis of a petition filed by Ramshis Thakur, who was acting as an agent of Jadunandan Thakur and who admitted the payment of the claim under the forged hand-note.
3. The Munsif had the power to file a complaint against the appellants before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the report of the Commissioner appointed by him, who recorded evidence and found a prima facie case against them.
4. The District Judge had the authority to dismiss the revision petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Munsif, as he found no illegality or irregularity in his order, and that he gave sufficient reasons for his decision.

JUDGEMENT 

• The Patna High Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and upheld the order of the Munsif to file a complaint against them for offences of forgery and fraud.
• The High Court held that the Munsif had the jurisdiction to order an inquiry under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after dismissing the suit on the basis of a petition filed by Ramshis Thakur, who was acting as an agent of Jadunandan Thakur and who admitted the payment of the claim under the forged hand-note.
• The High Court also held that the Munsif had the power to file a complaint against the appellants before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the report of the Commissioner appointed by him, who recorded evidence and found a prima facie case against them.
• The High Court further held that the District Judge had the authority to dismiss the revision petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Munsif, as he found no illegality or irregularity in his order, and that he gave sufficient reasons for his decision.

CONCLUSION 

The case concluded that the appellants were guilty of forgery and fraud in the money suit filed by Jadunandan Thakur against Musammat Rampati Kuer and others, and that they should be prosecuted for the same.The case also clarified the scope and applicability of Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which empowers the civil court to order an inquiry into any offence committed in relation to a proceeding before it, and to file a complaint thereof before a competent magistrate.

The case also distinguished between the powers of appeal and revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and held that the High Court had wider powers in revision than in appeal to interfere with the order of the civil court under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.The case also emphasized the need for giving reasons by the lower courts while passing orders under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and by the revisional courts while dismissing or allowing the revision petitions against such orders.

written by Shri Vaishnavi intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin