Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 147 (DEL)

MAHESH GUPTA v. SRIKRISHAN GUPTA

2007-01-23

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2007
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition has been filed before this court for setting aside the impugned order dated 16. 5. 2003 passed by the trial court and also for cancellation of Bail granted to the respondent no. 1 in FIR 380/2001 ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary to decide this petition are; the mother of the petitioner was the owner of the land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas out of Khasra no. 34/14/21 and 34/15/3 in kila no. 2 situated at Lehrada village, Tehsil, Sonepat district Haryana. The said land came into succession of legal heirs after the demise of the lady. As per the relinquishment deed dated 2. 2. 1980 the other legal heirs/accused relinquished their respective shares in the said property in favour of the Petitioner and accused Jai Narain. ( 3 ) THE Petitioner alleges that the accused conspired with each other and sold the said property vide General Power of Attorney (herein after referred to as G. P. A) dated 19. 8. 96. The signature of the petitioner was forged in the said gpa; the photograph of the Petitioner affixed to it is alleged to be two decades old. The Petitioner has stated in the petition that he did not lodge a FIR regarding the fraud committed upon him but filed a Petition under section 482 cr. P. C before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court directed that the matter be referred to the jurisdictional police station. Thereafter, FIR no. 380/01 was lodged against the 5 accused including Respondent no. 1. ( 4 ) THE Respondent no. 1 applied for bail before the Metropolitan magistrate, which was dismissed. The 2nd bail application was allowed by the order-dated 16. 5. 2003. The extracts of the impugned order dated 16. 5. 2003 are as follows; "two of the co-accused with similar allegations have already been granted bail. The present applicant had filed an affidavit admitting his signatures on the forged GPA, which is admitted IO SI Harish Chander. Signatures on affidavit were not sent for comparison so far with the specimen signatures. In the circumstances it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs. 30, 000/- with one surety in the like amount. Signatures on affidavit were not sent for comparison so far with the specimen signatures. In the circumstances it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs. 30, 000/- with one surety in the like amount. " The Petitioner stated in the petition that he has approached this court for canceling the bail granted to the Respondent and has further alleged that the trial court has not appreciated that the other co-accused were released on bail on medical grounds. ( 5 ) THE Petitioner has alleged that the original forged G. P. A and the amount received from the fraudulent sale transaction is in the possession of the accused and has not been recovered. The petitioner further sates that the forensic Science Laboratory has given the report that the signature on the g. P. A. is forged and fabricated. ( 6 ) THE Respondents in the FIR No. 380/01 were charged under section 420/467/468/471 read with Sec 120-B IPC for conspiring and selling the entire land by virtue of the forged GPA. ( 7 ) THE matter was listed before this court on 23. 01. 2007; it is taken up by the court after four years of filing the Petition. The Petition was filed in the year 2003 and returned by the branch to clear infirmities. It was re filed without clearing the objections. However, the registry made several efforts to return the case to the Petitioner/ counsel. The matter was displayed on the notice board, despite this there was no interest taken up by the Petitioner or the counsel to clear the objections and re file the matter. The matter was lying in the branch since then and now has been placed before this court for appropriate directions. The case was taken. ( 8 ) IN view of the above facts, and in the absence of any further pleading as to what happened in the proceeding after 16. 5. 2003 (when the bail was granted) the allegations in these proceedings are stale; in any case it would be hazardous after this court to act upon and entertain the petition. ( 9 ) IN the above stated reasons, the Petition is dismissed. 5. 2003 (when the bail was granted) the allegations in these proceedings are stale; in any case it would be hazardous after this court to act upon and entertain the petition. ( 9 ) IN the above stated reasons, the Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this Petition shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the proceedings initiated due to the FIR; all rights of the parties are reserved.