Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2850 (ALL)

BABUJEE @ UDAIVEER v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-08-19

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the revisionist filed today, be taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the records. Earlier original suit no. 293 of 2012, Fool Singh Vs. Meenu Maheshwari and Others was filed for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 31.03.2003 executed on behalf of plaintiffs Fool Singh and Udaiveer @ Babuji in favour of defendants. Said suit was instituted on 23.08.2012 with averement that plaintiffs are member of Scheduled Caste community and tenure holder of disputed property. They had neither sought permission to sale of that property nor executed sale-deed of said property, which is less than 1.26 hectare in area, but defendants had got prepared registered sale-deed showing its execution by plaintiffs; therefore said sale-deed be cancelled. After institution of original suit in the year 2012, one of the plaintiff Babu @ Udaiveer had moved application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with same averements as mentioned in the plaint of original suit no. 293 of 2012 (Fool Singh and another Vs. Meenu Maheshwari and Others) and thereafter requested that matter be investigated by police for the alleged forgery and cheating committed by opposite parties, and it was also requested that applicants be prosecuted inter alia for offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. After hearing the counsel for applicant trial court had passed order dated 15.07.2016 by which said application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered as complaint and revisionist-complainant was directed to adduce evidences u/s 200 CrPC. Aggrieved by this order dated 15.07.2016 present revision has been preferred by complainant-revisionist. So far the prosecution for offence u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act is concerned, the prayer made in complaint appears unacceptable because the alleged acts were not committed by opposite parties for the reason of revisionist being member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, but because those acts were done for acquiring possession and title of disputed agricultural property. Since no act has been committed against the revisionist for his being member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, therefore this contention is unacceptable that offence under provision of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act is made out. The revisionist had filed copy of sale-deed in question. It is neither written in plaint of original suit no. 293 of 2012 nor in complaint that the photograph present on this sale-deed is not of revisionist. The revisionist had filed copy of sale-deed in question. It is neither written in plaint of original suit no. 293 of 2012 nor in complaint that the photograph present on this sale-deed is not of revisionist. There are specific provisions in Registration Act that unless it is proved otherwise, it shall be treated that registered deed has been executed following procedure of law without irregularity. Therefore, prima facie there appears no reason at this stage to accept the contention of revisionist that registered sale-deed in question was executed without following procedure of law. As stated above original suit for cancellation of sale-deed in question is pending before competent civil court. Unless said sale-deed is quashed by competent court, the opposite parties cannot be held guilty for offences of forgery or other offence relating to execution of said deed. Therefore, apparently it appears that this is a case of exclusive civil nature, for which application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved. In spite of these facts, instead of dismissing the application, the trial court had afforded opportunity of hearing to revisionist by converting his application u/s 156(3) as complaint case, so that he may place his averments properly before the court. Everything required for prosecution of the matter is within knowledge of revisionist. He is in a position to adduce evidences in that regard. There is nothing that can be brought in knowledge of court by investigation, which is not already in knowledge of revisionist. Considering these facts and also considering that in mutation proceedings regarding disputed property is going on, the trial court had passed impugned order dated 15.07.2016, which suffers from no illegality, impropriety or infirmity. Therefore, there is nothing that requires exercise o jurisdiction of this court in this matter. Accordingly, this revision cannot be admitted, and is hereby dismissed.