Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 875 (ALL)

Firearm, Ram Chandra v. State of U. P.

2006-03-29

VINOD PRASAD

body2006
VINOD PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. ( 2 ) AS aggrieved between the parties this application is being finally disposed off at the admission stage itself. The applicant Fireram son of Ram Chandra, resident of Village Tilpata Karanvas, pargana and Tahsil Dadri, P. S. Surajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the court of C. J. M. Gautambudh Nagar on 22. 8. 05 with the allegation that the respondent No. 1 Rakesh Kumar got a fake and fabricated sale deed executed through Smt. Murti wife of Babu and Smt. Nanho wife of Pali both resident of Davli. As the said application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was not being disposed of by the trial court, the applicant approached this Court vide criminal misc. application No. 14249 of 2005. The aforesaid criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant was disposed off on 30. 9. 05 by Honble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J. with the direction to the trial court to decide the aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of certified copy of that order produced before him. ( 3 ) THE applicant filed the aforesaid order passed by this Court, referred to above along with an affidavit-dated 10. 10. 05. A copy of the affidavit as well as the application filed before C. J. M. concerned appending therewith the order passed by this Court on 30. 9. 05 have been appended as annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the affidavit along with this application. The C. J. M. concerned vide order dated 25. 2. 06 rejected the application of the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on the ground that it was for the civil court to cancel the sale deed and relief can be sought from the civil court. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that fabrication of a sale deed for the purposes of taking of property is criminal offence and no doubt that the civil court has a right to cancel the sale deed but matter before the criminal is as to who was the offender who had manufactured the sale deed and has deprived the applicant of his rightful claim. He contended that C. J. M. concerned had not apprise the correct position of law and had pass an impugned order influenced by the earlier order passed by this Court for his inaction on the application filed by the present applicant. ( 5 ) LEARNED A. G. A. also could not dispute the fact that the perusal of the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed kby the applicant does disclose the commission of cognizable offence by the accused and therefore, order passed by C. J. M. concerned is not in accordance with law. ( 6 ) LOOKING to facts of the case, the order dated 25. 2. 06 passed by the C. J. M. , Bulandshahar is quashed. C. J. M. concerned is directed to take up the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by the present applicant afresh and decide it in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. ( 7 ) THIS application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. . .