Smt. Farmudi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code of Criminal Procedure) the Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 24.05.2011, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby order dated 24.06.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, is affirmed.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner (complainant) lodged First Information Report which was registered as FIR No. 235 of 2009 (crime No. 244 of 2009) at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, relating to offences punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 Indian Penal Code, against the Respondents Sharif Ansari, Niyaz Mohammad, Ayyub Quraishi,, Sarvesh @ Rakesh and Deepak Chauhan. It was alleged in the First Information Report that sale deed dated 08.08.2003, by which landed property situated in Tanda Mallu, Tehsil Ramnagar, belonging to Petitioners'' son Intezar Hussain, was projected transferred for a consideration of ` 14,81,500/- was a fraudulent deed.

However, after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report. On said report the Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, issued notice to the complainant (petitioner) who filed protest petition. After considering evidence on record, and hearing the parties the Magistrate vide its order dated 24.06.2010, rejected the protest petition, and accepted the final report. Aggrieved by said order Petitioner Smt. Farmudi filed criminal revision No. 67 of 2010, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.05.2011, by revisional court (Addl. Sessions Judge/ I Fast Track Court, Nainital). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 5 Sarvesh @ Rakesh who is Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly, and Respondent No. 6 Deepak Chauhan who is Ex-Block Pramukh, are influential persons, and investigation was not fairly done.

On going through the papers on record, this Court finds that questioned sale deed dated 08.08.2003, was a registered document. Admittedly, no decree of cancellation of sale deed was passed by any civil court, nor any civil suit was filed in respect of said document at the stage of investigation. (Now it is said that the suit has been filed which is pending). Even if the allegation made in the First Information Report are taken to be true, the document at the most can be said to be a voidable document regarding which there should have been decree from the court that the deed was fraudulent and void, and liable to be cancelled. The plea taken by the Petitioner is that his son Intezar Hussain who executed the sale deed was retarded person. Said plea was considered by the Judicial Magistrate who referred in his order the document paper No. 3A/81 issued by Joint Director of Psychiatric Hospital, Bareilly, to the Investigating Officer who has reported that after examination Intezar was found having intelligent quotient 88% as such he was not retarded or mentally ill. The Magistrate has discussed the reasons at length before accepting the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the fact that before final report was submitted, the officer who investigated the case earlier filed the charge sheet but the same was cancelled by the Circle Officer, Ramnagar, and matter was reinvestigated and final report was submitted. However, on the basis of the cancelled report of the police which was not submitted to the court it cannot be said that the acceptance of final report made by the Magistrate after recording reasons, is erroneous in law.

For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order challenged before this Court. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the suit now filed for cancellation of sale deed, the petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, is dismissed.