ASHOK CHHETRI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the powers of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure have been sought to be invoked for quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 8405/2008, State v. Ashok Chhetri, under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun.

(2.) THE background facts are that on initiation of the applicant Ashok Chhetri, Respondent No. 2 Sukhram Khadga purchased a piece of land ad measuring 376.25 sq. mt. bearing khasra No. 2475/179 situated in village Markhamgrant -2 on 8.3.2004 for total consideration of rupees four lakhs. This land was owned by one Rishipal Singh, S/o late Latoor Singh, R/o Madhowala (Markhamgrant), Pargana Parvadoon, District Dehradun. Rishipal Singh is a colleague and also said to be a friend of applicant Ashok Chhetri. Both work in I.R.D.E. (an organization of the Government of India). Ashok Chhetri and Sukhram Khadga are the real brother -in -law of each other. As per the statement of Sukhram Khadga, rupees four lakhs were given as consideration by him to Ashok Chhetri, who was playing the role of a mediator in the said transaction. The seller Rishipal Singh has also given a statement to the Investigation Officer that the whole transaction was being done by Ashok Chhetri and he relied upon him because he was his colleague working in the same office. He never knew Sukhram Khadga. During investigation, it was revealed that Ashok Chhetri although received the consideration amount of rupees four lakhs from Sukhram Khadga, but out of the said amount, he only gave rupees sixty thousand to Rishipal Singh in cash, and in addition thereto, he gave a cheque of rupees forty thousand, which was subsequently dishonoured by the bank. When Rishipal Singh did not receive the entire amount, he complained the matter to the applicant Ashok Chhetri and repeatedly asked him to pay the remaining amount. On this, Ashok Chhetri asked to sell the same land to some other person in order to receive the full amount of consideration. It has also been stated by Rishipal in his statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that Ashok Chhetri told him that he will persuade and pacify Sukhram Khadga as he is his real brother -in -law. Ashok Chhetri did not ever allow Rishipal to directly approach Sukhram Khadga and to enquire regarding the payment of the remaining amount of sale consideration. So, Rishipal, on the persuasion of Ashok Chhetri, sold the same land as aforementioned to one Nathi Ram on 22.5.2007.

(3.) THE chargesheet was submitted after investigation only against the applicant Ashok Chhetri, and not against Rishipal. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that Rishipal has been made approver during the course of investigation and he could be allowed to do so only with the permission of the Magistrate concerned, as envisaged under Section 306 Code of Criminal Procedure. Opposing the said contention, learned Counsel for the private Respondent contended that Rishipal has not been made approver in this case. The police have made him only a witness. If the police have not submitted the chargesheet against Rishipal, then the matter could be protested during the course of trial because there was No. occasion for Sukhram Khadga during the course of investigation to interfere with the decision of the Investigation Officer regarding submission of the chargesheet only against Ashok Chhetri, and dropping the same against Rishipal. This Court is in full agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel for the private Respondent (Sukhram Khadga).