Smt. Pavitra Chaudhari and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this revision, a prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 07.07.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun in criminal case No. 416 of 2003 titled as State v. V.K. Tyagi. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, has summoned revisionists V.K. Chaudhari and his wife Pavitra Chaudhari for the offence u/s 420, 120B read with Section 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code and asked them to stand trial in the case, which was being proceeded against V.K. Tyagi.

Having heard learned for the parties, it transpires that an FIR was lodged by Smt. Nigam Tandon against revisionists as well as V.K. Tyagi on dated 17.01.1998. The facts alleged therein were that these revisionists shown a piece of land way back in January February, 1997 bearing Khasra No. 168 in village Mohabbewala, Dehradun and disclosed that the said land was owned by one Sri Mahendra Singh, who resides outside Dehradun. They also disclosed that Mahendra Singh has executed a power of attorney to V.K. Tyagi to deal with the said piece of land.

Smt. Nigam Tandon along with her husband verified the genuineness of the land from Patwari of the circle, who affirmed ownership of the land with Mahendra Singh. Patwari opined that land is purchasable and does not carry any encumbrance over it. Having credence upon the version of the revisionists as well as Patwari, the land admeasuring 752.52 sq. metre (0.186 acre) was purchased by Tandon couple and monetary consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/- was paid to V.K. Tyagi in front of Vijay Mahendra and Nand Kishore Tandon. Ensuing the said sale deed on 04.08.1997, the mutation was applied on 15.09.1997, then the deception was highlighted and it was revealed that the power of attorney allegedly held by V.K. Tyagi, which was made the basis of executing the sale deed, was forged one. Bewildered with deception, Smt. Nigam Tandon lodged FIR against the revisionists and V.K. Tyagi. After investigation, with the change of hands of two-three Sub Inspector, the final report was submitted against the revisionists while chargesheet was submitted against V.K. Tyagi on 24.03.1998 for the offence u/s 420, 467, 471, 506 Indian Penal Code.

When Tandon couple noticed, filing of final report against the revisionists, Smt. Nigam Tandon filed a protest petition on 28.09.2001 and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties on merits, dismissed the protest petition on 31.05.2004. Thus, the trial proceeded against sole accused V.K. Tyagi. When Smt. Nigam Tandon was examined in the court on 12.06.2007, she implicated revisionists in the entire episode and the learned Magistrate, having taken cognizance of the application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the revisionists to stand trial for the same offence, for which V.K. Tyagi was tried. This order of cognizance dated 07.07.2007 is under challenge.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists has argued before this Court that even alleged facts as stated in the FIR if taken to be true on their face value, the role of the revisionists is confined just to show the land in question to Smt. Nigam Tandon and inform that land, in fact, is owned by Mahendra Singh, who has given his power of attorney to V.K. Tyagi to deal with the matter. They also introduced V.K. Tyagi with Smt. Nigam Tandon. Smt. Nigam Tandon along with her husband verified the genuineness of this land from the revenue papers held by Patwari of the circle, who affirmed not only the ownership of the land, as disclosed by the revisionists, but also recommended to purchase the land, being clean from any encumbrance.

This much role of the revisionists in the opinion of the court is not enough to implicate them at par with V.K. Tyagi, who is facing trial. Revisionists are not beneficiaries of any transaction. They have not received any monetary consideration either from Smt. Nigam Tandon or her husband even they are not witness of the sale deed. They have even not instigated Smt. Nigam Tandon to purchase the land and pass this monetary consideration to V.K. Tyagi. Simply showing the land, disclosing the name of its owner and then informing that V.K. Tyagi holds power of attorney and competent to deal with the matter, do not keep them at par with V.K. Tyagi. Fortiori, Smt. Nigam Tandon along with her husband purchased the land in question not on the sheer belief, which they had upon the version of the revisionists but they got it verified from the Patwari of the circle, who affirmed the information extended by revisionists to Smt. Nigam Tandon nay also informing that the land carries no encumbrance.

In the above circumstances, simply statement of Smt. Nigam Tandon in the court while deposing as prosecution witness is not enough to implicate the revisionists at par with V.K. Tyagi. So this revision has merits and deserves to be allowed. Revision is accordingly allowed. Impugned cognizance order dated 07.07.2007 is hereby quashed.