Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2463 (ALL)

Jagat Singh v. State of U. P. and 2 Others

2013-09-30

VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2013
Vijay Prakash Pathak,J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA. 2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.7.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No.532 of 2012, Chaman Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P. and direct the courts below to summon the accused-respondents no.2 and 3. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate against one Amar Pal and respondents 2 and 3 with the allegations that Late Ganga Saran Saini died on 1.6.2007 whose cremation was made by his son Dharmendra on 1.6.2007 itself at 9.40 PM at Samshan Ghat and the entry to the said effect was recorded in the documents of Nagar Palika Parishad, Garmukhteshwar (Ghaziabad) but the respondents 2 and 3 due to political rivalry in connivance with said Amar Pal, another son of Late Ganga Saran Saini got the date of death recorded as 1.5.2005 in place of 1.6.2007 in the record of Nagar Panchayat, B.B.Nagar, Bulandshahr. It is also stated that the entry of death was rightly recorded in the record of Nagar Palika Parishad, Garmukteshwar but on the basis of forged affidavit, the said entry was changed in Nagar Panchayat, B.B.Nagar, Bulandhshahr.It is also alleged that Amar Pal had prepared the said forged affidavit. The allegations against respondents 2 and 3 is only to this extent that they helped him in preparing the same. The said application was treated as a complaint and thereafter the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the witnesses, namely Pravin Kumar, Tax Collector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Garmukteshwar and Kishore Lal, clerk, Nagar Pahchayat, B.B.Nagar, Bulandshahr and after considering the entire material on record, summoned the respondents 2 and 3 and also Amar Pal for the offence punishable under Sections 465 and 120B of IPC vide order dated 15.9.2012. 4. Aggrieved agaisnt the said order dated 15.9.2012, respondents no.2 and 3 filed a Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide judgment and order dated 11.7.2013 allowing the revision of respondents 2 and 3. 5. 4. Aggrieved agaisnt the said order dated 15.9.2012, respondents no.2 and 3 filed a Criminal Revision No. 532 of 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, which was decided by learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr vide judgment and order dated 11.7.2013 allowing the revision of respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the respondents 2 and 3 had helped the co-accused Amar Pal in preparing the forged affidavit regarding the death of late Ganga Saran Saini, father of Amar Pal and as such against them offence under Section 120B has been made out. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA has contended that three is no evidence on record to prove that the respondents 2 and 3 had helped or conspired in any way in preparing the said death certificate and hence the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned lower revisional court along with entire material on record. 8. Learned Magistracy while passing the summoning order dated 15.9.2012 has not discussed the evidence of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.,whereas the learned Sessions Judge has considered the said evidence and has clearly held that on the basis of allegations made in the complaint, no forgery is completed and moreover witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have not stated regarding any conspiracy alleged to have been done by the revisionists (respondents 2 and 3) and accordingly the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was found to be suffered from illegality and material irregularity. As such the revision was allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside. 9. I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 11.7.2013. 10. The petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. _____________