Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 272 (UTT)

Anil Kumar Shrivastava v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-28

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. In pursuance to the First Information Report lodged by respondent no. 2 – Sunil Sareen under Sections 420/467/468/471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt. District Drhadun in which police after investigating the matter submitted the charge-sheet against the present applicant before the court concerned. Subsequently, the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 138 of 2013 under the aforesaid Sections, which is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun. Consequently, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter and issued summon against the present applicant. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by filing the present application. 2. Heard Mr. Navnit Kaushik, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Arvind Vashsith, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, Advocate, present for respondent no. 2 and perused the records. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some considerable length, it is clear from the records that there are a series of litigation going on between the parties, which are both in civil as well as in criminal. 4. It is alleged that the applicant and his wife had given a general power of attorney in favour of Sarvjeet Singh Nikhanj, which was subsequently cancelled by them vide registered notice dated 05.12.1997. In spite of the above fact, he (Saravjeet Singh Nikhanj) executed the sale deed of the land in favour of his son i.e. Jitin Nikhanj. Subsequently, the execution of sale deed of the land was given in favour of one S.C. Mathur. Later, Jitin Nikhanj through his attorney/respondent no. 2 – Sunil Sareen moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun for registering a case against three persons (including the present applicant). During the pendency of the application (referred above), the applicant also lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Cantt, Dehradun under Sections 420/467/468/471 of I.P.C. against the applicant and two other accused persons. Consequently, the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings initiated on the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. During the pendency of the application (referred above), the applicant also lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Cantt, Dehradun under Sections 420/467/468/471 of I.P.C. against the applicant and two other accused persons. Consequently, the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings initiated on the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. This Court is, however, of the opinion that since the charge sheet has already been filed in this case, and the entire case of the prosecution is already with the court below, it would be in the fitness of things that the discharge application be moved by the applicant before the court below, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. In case, the court below finds on the strength of the evidence that the matter cannot proceed further appropriate order be passed therein. It is further made clear that considering the nature of offence and the fact that parties are already involved in civil litigation as well the court below, which all are linked, hence, in case, the applicant appears before the trial court and moves an application for his bail before the learned Magistrate concerned, the same shall be considered as far as possible on the same day itself, in accordance with law. In case, the bail application is deferred or rejected for any reason, the learned Magistrate shall consider granting them an interim bail. 6. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed. Interim order dated 04.11.2015 stands vacated.