Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 66 (UTT)

RAJ KUMAR GAMBHIR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2017-01-17

V.K.BIST

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. Mr. Sailendra Nauriyal, Advocate, for the applicants/petitioners. 2. Mr. K.S. Rautela, Government Advocate, assisted by Smt. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the cognizance order as well as the chargesheet dated 18.2.2016 and also the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1096/2016, State v. Narendra Seti & Others, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 4. The facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Seema Sethi lodged an FIR on 17.11.2015 with the allegation that the accused no. 1 Narendra Kumar Sethi in conspiracy with the present applicants has forged a Will dated 4.11.1998 and on the basis of this unregistered Will, they want to grab her share in the joint property. Present applicants, who are accused no. 2 and 3, are the witnesses of the said Will. Complainant has averred that the property was originally owned by Smt. Motia Rani, who happened to be the mother-in-law of the complainant and mother of the accused no. 1. After the death of Smt. Motia Rani, this property came under the joint ownership of Mr. Sohan Lal Sethi (husband of Smt. Motia Rani) and Narendra Kumar Sethi and Sushil Kumar Sethi (sons of Smt. Motia Rani). An affidavit to this effect was also submitted in the year 2002 before the Court in a case related to the same property. Complainant has further averred that her husband passed away on 5.11.2011 and Mr. Sohan Lal Sethi is also no more now. She has also alleged that after the death of her husband, the accused Narendra Kumar Sethi and his father had committed domestic violence against her and a case in this regard is going on before the competent Court. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on the record. 6. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the accused applicants that the dispute is civil in nature and a civil case, between the accused no. 1 and the complainant, relating to the property, in question, is pending before the Civil Court and, therefore, proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1096/2016 are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that complainant has already entered into compromise with the main accused Narendra Kumar Sethi. 1 and the complainant, relating to the property, in question, is pending before the Civil Court and, therefore, proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1096/2016 are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that complainant has already entered into compromise with the main accused Narendra Kumar Sethi. 8. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the accused applicants and the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the fact that the applicants have already been chargesheeted for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and the cognizance has also been taken against them, I do not find it a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and to stifle the prosecution at this stage. It is the settled position of law that such powers should be exercised sparingly and with great amount of caution. 9. Petition is dismissed in limine. 10. However, as prayed for, it is directed that if the applicants move application for their bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably on the same day. 11. Urgency application (IA 168/2017) also stands disposed of.