NAVEEN KUMAR RAI Vs SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

The case of Naveen Kumar Rai Vs. Surendra Kumar Singh & Others, raises the question that whether the FIR is being filed on the issue where civil proceedings are already being initiated. The case was initially being filed in civil court seeking a declaration of the transaction to be null and void. After that the district deputy registrar, Giridih initiated his inquiry and on the basis of that inquiry both the documents (Power of attorney POA, Sale deed) cancelled. The major issue in this case is Who is the Deputy commissioner to cancel the sale deed which is not in his domain and also initiate the criminal case against the petitioners for the same cause of action for which the title suit is already pending. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Purushotam Rai made a false document of Power of Attorney and transfers land of Naveen Kumar Rai to Bikash Kumar Singh, S/o Surendra Singh at Giridih.
2. When the original owner Naveen Kumar, learnt about this illegal transaction he instituted proceedings before Civil Court seeking declaration for the transaction void and null.
3. The District Deputy Registrar of Giridih initiated inquiry against the same himself and on the basis of his inquiry the Poa and sale deed stood cancelled. And he himself registered FIR against Purushotam Rai, Bikash kr. Along with five more accused.

After this the accused persons want separate writs titled “Surendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Purushotam Rai v. State of Jharkhand.

4. Both the writs were disposed off by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Giridih.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. Appellant Mr. Naveen Kumar Rai, initiated civil proceeding asking for the declaration of illegal transaction void and null.

        Without waiting for the court’s decision, the Deputy Registrar of Giridih investigated the matter and cancelled the Poa and sale deed.

2. The Registrar himself filed FIR against the accused takes prima facie holding Purushotam forged the Poa 

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. Respondent Mr. Surendra Singh, preferred separate writ petition which was impugned vide by chief Judicial Magistrate of Giridih.
2. They argued that while the civil procedure is already in process then filing FIR and initiating criminal procedure is amount to an abuse to the process of court,
3. They argued that the cancellation of the Sale deed and the power of attorney while the title suit has already been filed earlier is not in the domain of the Deputy Commissioner, he doesn’t have the right cancel sale deed.

   JUDGEMENT

The court find that there is no order of the Inspector General, even the FIR that is lodged by the Deputy sub registrar is against section 83 and Registration act 1908 and also there is not the permission of the sub registrar in whose territory the offence is committed. The court ordered to restore the file of civil suit in the concerned district court, and to ensure that all the consequential steps to be followed including the trial court’s commencing proceeding. The appellant Mr. Naveen Kumar is directed to appear in the court on 1^st March 2024 at 10 a.m. 

 CONCLUSION

This case involved the false registry or property and filing a criminal suit by the extreme third party having not any right or authority to do so. On what the accused of the case filed separately writes against each other which was quashed by the judicial magistrate there. 

The Supreme Court’s directive based on its comprehensive examination of relevant documents, ordered to restore the file of civil suit between Naveen Kumar vs Surendra Singh. And ordered for further proceed with process.

REFERENCE 

SCC ONLINE

Written by Shreya Raj an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin