Bald allegations unsupported by documents cannot establish a prima facie criminal offence.

The petitioner filed a complaint against Shivpati Devi, Amit Kumar Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Sinha and Diya Sinha alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

He alleged that Ashanandan Singh, his brother, had relied upon a forged Will in probate and partition proceedings, and that after Ashanandan Singh’s death, his widow and son received ₹3 lakhs from the petitioner in connection with the transfer of approximately four acres of land.

Despite this, Shivpati Devi allegedly executed Sale Deed No. 1636 dated 25 August 2012 in favour of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha and Diya Sinha for ₹18 lakhs, with Amit Kumar Singh acting as the identifier.

The complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 177 of 2012.

The complainant and three enquiry witnesses were examined.

After enquiry, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the dispute was essentially civil and concerned competing claims over property.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision, contending that the complaint and enquiry evidence disclosed a prima facie case warranting issuance of summons under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the materials recorded during the enquiry disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC requiring the accused to be summoned under Section 202 Cr.P.C.?

2. Whether the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and unsupported by concrete documentary material?

The Court considered Sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the Magistrate may conduct an enquiry into a complaint and must dismiss it where, after considering the complainant’s examination and the enquiry material, there is insufficient ground for proceeding.

The Court also considered Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, which respectively concern cheating, forgery of valuable security or specified documents, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a forged document as genuine.

The governing principle applied was that mere allegations, particularly in a property dispute, do not justify criminal process unless the available material discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences and is supported by credible material or documents.

The Court found that the evidence of C.W.-2 and C.W.-3 supported only the assertion that Shivpati Devi had received ₹3 lakhs from the complainant and had allegedly agreed to transfer land in return, but later neither transferred the land nor returned the money.

Although the petitioner alleged that the subsequent sale to the opposite parties was fraudulent and carried out in connivance, no concrete documentary material was produced to establish forgery, cheating, or knowing use of a forged document.

The surrounding circumstances reflected a dispute concerning title, possession, consideration and competing claims over immovable property.

Applying the threshold under Sections 202 and 203 Cr.P.C., the Court held that bald allegations unsupported by documentary evidence did not constitute a sufficient prima facie basis for proceeding with the criminal case.

The order dated 1 March 2017 dismissing Complaint Case No. 177 of 2012 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was affirmed, and the criminal revision was dismissed.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.