Smt. Vinod Kumari and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.6.2006 in Case No. 104 of 2006 under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura vide Criminal Case No. 3606 of 2006.

The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet dated 12.6.2006 in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura. Considering the same, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial. Being aggrieved from the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicants the present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the same.

Heard, Sri D. K. Dewan, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vivek Dubey, learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2.

The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Randhir Singh on 28.5.2006 in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.7.1999. The allegation against the applicants is that they have prepared a forged sale deed in respect of the land of the first informant. The F.I.R. has been lodged in pursuance of the order passed u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. It is alleged that first informant and his two brothers namely Mokham Singh and Roopesh Singh are tenure holders of the land of Gata Nos. 30, 32, 35 and 31 having the total area of 1.982 hectare. No other person has any share in the aforesaid land. The co-accused Kripal Singh and Nripal Singh are mischievous persons having political relations. They executed a forged sale deed in respect of the land of the first informant and his brothers in favour of the applicant Smt. Vinod Kumar on 15.7.1999.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer no offence is made out against the applicants and there is no evidence to show that the applicants have committed any forgery in furtherance of any criminal conspiracy.

In the present case, the F.I.R. has been lodged in pursuance of the order passed u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. During investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted after recording the statement of first informant and his brothers Mokham Singh and Roopesh Singh and three other officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Mathura.

The land in dispute was owned by Pyare son of Gyasi who died in 1975. His only son Sher Singh became the owner of the said land who sold the land in the year 1976 to Mithlesh Kumar, Ramesh Chand and Mahesh Chand, the land was mutated in their names on 30.11.1976. They remained the owner of the land till August, 1997. Only 1/3rd part was sold to applicant No. 1, i.e., Smt. Vinod Kumari on 2.9.1997 through a sale deed. By way of two different sale deeds the remaining land was also sold to Kripal Singh and Nripal Singh. The first sale deed was executed by Mithlesh Kumar in favour of applicant No. 1 and remaining sale deeds were executed by Ramesh Chand and Mahesh Chand. All the sale deeds were registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mathura. The land purchased by Kripal Singh and Nripal Singh was sold to applicant No. 1 by way of executing a sale deed on 23.8.1997 which was registered on 15.7.1999. The applicant No. 1 Smt. Vinod Kumari has invested the amount of Rs. 5 lacs in purchasing the land. The first informant and his brothers on the basis of the so-called will deed executed by Pyare, the grandfather of O.P. No. 2 claiming the said land ignoring the fact that after the death of Pyare his only son Sher Singh became the owner of that land and his name was entered into the revenue records. During consolidation the A.C.O., Mathura passed an order dated 28.4.2005 and 26.5.2005 against which the informant filed a Civil Suit No. 247 of 1992 regarding the same land on the basis of the will deed dated 3.5.1972 which was dismissed on 25.9.1997 against which Civil Revision No. 171 of 1997 was filed by the first informant in which the applicant No. 1 was allowed to be a necessary party and the matter was remanded back to decide certain issues. In respect of the land in dispute a litigation is going on, in such circumstances no offence is made out against the applicants.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie offence is made out. There is no illegality in submission of the charge-sheet. The present application is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and Sri Vivek Dubey, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2 and from the perusal of the record, it appears that there is no procedural illegality in the submission of the charge-sheet and in taking the cognizance by learned Magistrate concerned but it shall not be proper to hold at this stage that prima facie any offence is made out on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer or not, it shall be considered by the Court concerned at the appropriate stages, if it is challenged by the applicants. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet of Case Crime No. 104 of 2006 under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 and 120B, I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, district Mathura is refused.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the Court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of on the same day by the courts below in accordance with the provisions of law.

With this direction this application is finally disposed of.