Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 454 (ALL)

VINAY CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF U P

2008-02-27

AMAR SARAN

body2008
AMAR SARAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. 2. An order dated 29. 11. 2007 passed by the C. J. M. , Mathura, framing charges against the applicant and others in Criminal Case No. 5008 of 2004, has been challenged by means of this application. 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is absolutely no evidence against him and even if the material collected by the Investigating Officer is taken in to, no prima facie case is disclosed. 4. I find that earlier an application has been moved on 6. 2. 2004 by the applicant and others before the C. J. M. seeking discharge. An Order dated 5. 11. 2007 was passed on the said application refusing to discharge the applicant and co-accused and so far as the applicant was concerned, his Counsel had pleaded that there was no evidence in the case. However, it was pointed out that the applicant Vinay Chaturvedi was the purchaser of the said property. It was observed in the said order that the complainant Kailash Bhadauria filed the complaint against the applicant, Prithvi Singh, Mohan Lal and Kanhaiya that they had got a fake power of attorney executed in the name of Mohan Lal of the property belonging to his late grand-father by setting up another person as Mohan Lal and got the forged sale deed registered, thereby committing offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The Investigating Officer had submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant and others, but had excluded the name of Vinod Kumar from the same. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the said Madan Lal in his 161 Cr. P. C. statement has only nominated co-accused Prithvi Singh. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that he never purchased the property. Specific averments have been made in that regard in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 and that some one had named him just to falsely implicate him. I am not impressed by this contention. If the applicant is not the vendee of the said property, he can always lead evidence in defence at the appropriate stage at the trial for disproving the fact that he was not the vendee, and his name has maliciously been shown on the sale deed. I am not impressed by this contention. If the applicant is not the vendee of the said property, he can always lead evidence in defence at the appropriate stage at the trial for disproving the fact that he was not the vendee, and his name has maliciously been shown on the sale deed. There does not seem to be any reason why the applicant would be shown as the vendee of the property in the sale deed, if he has nothing to do with the same, nor was it pointed out why any other person would do such an act. 6. One of the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant that Vinod Kumar has been excluded by the Investigating Officer, who was also shown as one of the vendee. 7. Simply because one of the accused has been excluded in the charge-sheet is not a ground for not framing charges against another accused, if the Court reaches a conclusion that a prima facie case against a particular accused is disclosed. That is the only requirement at the stage of framing of charges. Moreover, the prosecution always has an opportunity for seeking impleadment for any accused, who has been left out by the police by moving an application under section 319 Cr. P. C. during trial, if it considers appropriate. For these reasons, I find no illegality in the order of the C. J. M. refusing to discharge the applicant and framing charges. The application has no force and it is rejected. Application Rejected. .