Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 606 (UTT)

Teluram v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-09-24

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. 1. The present C482 application has been moved by the present applicant challenging the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2017, wherein, the present applicant has been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC, which is pending in the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. The First Information Report was lodged by one Shravan Kumar on 15.07.2017 at P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar bearing Case Crime No. 250 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 120 B of IPC against the present applicant in which after investigation the final report was filed, which was rejected by the Trial Court and directed for further investigation and thereafter after further investigation the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. 3. In the said charge-sheet the Trial Court took cognizance on 26.08.2022 and thereafter the applicant has been summoned and now being aggrieved with the said proceeding the present C482 application has been moved. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and the allegations are of civil nature and there are no ingredients which constitute the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC. He has no intention to cheat the complainant and the investigation was done in a very casual manner and without collecting any material evidence the charge-sheet was filed. 5. In paragraph-2 the reference of certain lands have been given and in paragraph-4 it is contended that the father of respondent no. 4 was the owner of the property in Khata No. 725 Khasra No. 1581/2 measuring 310 square meter and Khasra No. 1582/2 measuring 30 square meter and the father of respondent no. 4 executed one power of attorney in favour of Inderjeet and sold the area of the property measuring 2631 square feet to one Ranjana W/o Mahavir Prasad on 29.03.1993 and some other sale deeds were also executed from Khasra No. 1582/2 and 1581 to other person. He submits that respondent no. 4 without any right and title over the property in Khasra No. 1581/2 and 1582/2 by showing himself as the power of attorney holder in the property executed sale deed on 20.11.2014 to respondent no. He submits that respondent no. 4 without any right and title over the property in Khasra No. 1581/2 and 1582/2 by showing himself as the power of attorney holder in the property executed sale deed on 20.11.2014 to respondent no. 5 and there is nothing but it is a dispute with regard to the boundary. 6. He also submits that the suit for permanent injunction was also filed by the present applicant bearing O.S. No. 342 of 2022, in which the respondent/complainant are the defendants and the matter is subjudice. He also submits that the applicant has no transaction of any kind with respondent nos. 4 to 6 directly or indirectly and the proceedings as initiated against him is an abuse of process of law and submits that the proceedings be quashed. 7. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi submits that on the first information report, which was lodged by the respondent/complainant on 15.07.2017 the matter was also enquired by the revenue officials as well as S.I.T. All these reports are placed on record in the counter affidavit. 8. I perused all the three reports and from these reports it reveals that the present applicant executed several sale deeds to several persons without having any title and right over the land. 9. Learned A.G.A. Mr. V.S. Pal, who appears for the respondent-Investigating Agency also submits that the present applicant is habitual to execute the sale deed to several persons without having any ownership and title, which is evident from the report of the revenue officials as well as S.I.T. report. Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit is a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and I also peruse the same. 10. Apart from this, as per this report, which was submitted by the Revenue Inspector it reveals that the present applicant sold the same land repeatedly to other persons and a recommendation was made that criminal action should be initiated against him. 11. Now, after thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed after collecting credible evidence and there are sufficient material to proceed against the applicant that without any right he sold the same land to the several other persons by different sale deeds, which is also reflected from the report submitted by the Revenue Officials as well as by the team of S.I.T. 12. One thing is very important in this case that the First Information Report was lodged on 15.07.2023 and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed on 18.07.2022 and after submission of the charge-sheet a civil suit was filed on 06.10.2022 by the present applicant for seeking permanent injunction against the respondent/complainant and some other persons thus it appears that the subsequent civil suit was filed only in order to frustrate the criminal proceeding, which has been initiated pursuant to the first information report lodged by respondent-complainant on 15.07.2017. 13. Even otherwise, since there are sufficient material against the applicant and before submission of the charge-sheet the revenue officials also conducted the enquiry and submitted the report and not only this even S.I.T. also submitted the report; therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the pending proceeding. 14. All these aspects can be looked into during trial and all the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are subject matter of the trial, accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed being devoid of merit. 15. Interim order passed by this court on 15.11.2022 is vacated.