Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1862 (ALL)

Ram Ujagir v. State of U. P.

2022-11-24

SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. List revised. None appeared for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 7.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6 in Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2014 (Ram Ujagir v. State of U.P. and others), Police Station-Gaur, District-Basti and order dated 18.4.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti in Complaint No. 907 of 2013 (Ram Ujagir v. Vijay Pal Singh and others) P.S.-Gaur, District-Basti. 4. It is submitted that in this case petitioner has filed a complaint before the Court concerned against the opposite parties for preparing a forged power of attorney which was got registered in district Chandauli at Sub-Registrar Office and in pursuance of that power of attorney the property owned by the petitioner was sold by transfer though the petitioner never executed the said power of attorney. It is further submitted that the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses Tilak Ram, Govind Lal and T.N. Siddiqui were recorded before the Court concerned in support of allegation made in the complaint and the hand writing expert report in which it was found that the thumb impression was not affixed by this petitioner, even though learned Court concerned did not consider all these facts while passing the order in question dated 18.8.2014 by holding that opposite party No. 1 was In-charge Sub Registrar in Sub Registrar Office, Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli regarding which no sanction was obtained by the petitioner under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution, therefore, the matter cannot be proceeded against him and dismissed the complaint against all the opposite parties under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Against the said order the petitioner filed a criminal revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has also not considered all these facts, but dismissed the criminal revision. It is next submitted that though the act done by opposite party No. 1 the In-charge Sub Registrar cannot be said to be in discharge of official duties because nowhere it comes in the official duty to prepare or assist in preparing forged documents, therefore, sanction is not required at all. It is also submitted that opposite party Nos. 3 to 8/opposite party Nos. It is also submitted that opposite party Nos. 3 to 8/opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 in the compliant were not public servants and the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not applicable in their case, even though learned Court concerned did not consider this fact also, but passed the order which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, requested to quash the order passed by learned Court concerned and the revisional Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the orders passed by the learned Court below, but acceded the fact that opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 in the complaint were not public servants and bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not applicable in their case. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record including the orders in question, it appears that except opposite party No. 1 others were not public servants and the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to attract against all the opposite parties. In this regard no finding has been recorded by learned Court concerned while passing the order dated 18.4.2014, even this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while deciding the criminal revision. In this way, the order dated 18.4.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti as well as the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District-Basti in criminal revision dated 7.2.2015 cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. As a result, this Criminal Misc. Writ Petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 18.4.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti as well as the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, District-Basti in criminal revision dated 7.2.2015 are hereby set aside. The matter is send back to the learned Court concerned to decide the same afresh on the basis of material on record.