Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 109 (ALL)

Tirath Ram & Another v. State of U. P. & Another.

2013-01-09

VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2013
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.;— Despite service of notice no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA. By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. charge-sheet submitted in case crime no. 341 of 2009 under sections 420,467,468,471 IPC P.S. Hardi, District Baharaich, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich and the proceeding initiated in pursuance thereof (State Vs. Tirath Ram and others) were sought to be quashed. From perusal of the record, it reveals that one Prabhawati who has been arrayed as accused and his brother Sunder Lal were the bhumidhar of certain piece of land. Both having equal share in the agriculture property. Prabhawati sold her property by three different sale-deeds leaving only 0.02210 hectare land of her share. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that one sale-deed was executed by Prabhwati in favour of Smt. Jagdai, the wife of complainant and one more sale-deed was executed in favour of Hukum Singh, the brother of complainant. The sale deed was executed by metes and bounds. The sale-deed of 0.560 hectare land executed in favour of Tirath Ram could not be mutated in the revenue records and the land continued to remain in the name of Prabhawati alongwith the remaining land not sold by Prabhawati. When the land in question was requisitioned for digging canal, Tirath Ram with connivance of Prabhawati got sale-deed of 0.077 hectare land in favour of Lafeda, the wife of Tirath Ram. In that sale deed boundaries were shown but were the boundaries of land sold in favour of brother of complainant. After investigation the police submitted final report on the ground that sale-deed has been executed by Praphawati with the consent of Tirath Ram, who have could not be mutated his property sold before 18 years ago. Thereafter a protest application was filed, on the the basis of which the learned Magistrate directed for further investigation. After further investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that civil suit in respect of the same property was filed by Ganga Prasad, Hukum Singh and Dhananjai, in which Teerath Ram, Smt. Lefeda, Ram Ujagar, Sugreev Prasad, Ramrani and Kashiram were arrayed as defendants. After further investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that civil suit in respect of the same property was filed by Ganga Prasad, Hukum Singh and Dhananjai, in which Teerath Ram, Smt. Lefeda, Ram Ujagar, Sugreev Prasad, Ramrani and Kashiram were arrayed as defendants. In the suit the relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs that defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering in the possession over the property in question which they have purchased by means of sale-deed. The defendants 3 to 6 were co-tenure holder with plaintiffs. The injunction was sought against petitioners No. 1 and 2 (Tirath Ram and Smt. Lafeda). It is further submitted that civil suit is still pending before civil court and the complainant has not filed any suit for cancellation of sale-deed and on the basis of these allegations the prosecution sought to be quashed. It is pertinent to mention here that in further investigation what evidence was collected by I.O. has not been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned AGA argued the case on the basis of the material available on record. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case only on the ground that civil suit is pending, the proceeding initiated in criminal side cannot necessarily be quashed when it is established that Prabhawati sold the property again in which she has no interest, therefore, on the basis of the material available on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. The petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above the petition is dismissed. _____________