SANJAY GARG Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal miscellaneous application, the chargesheet filed against the applicants and pending in the court of C.J.M. Haridwar as case no.4392 of 2009 for the offence of Section 420 IPC and the cognizance taken thereupon, is under challenge. It has been sought that the said chargesheet as well as the cognizance order dated 11.8.2009 be quashed.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel of the applicants and Sri Surendra Kumar Sharma (opposite party in person), it transpires that initially the bone of contention between the parties was a shop based at Haridwar whereof Surendra Kumar Sharma was a landlord and Sri Sanjay Garg along with his brother Anil Garg were the tenants. A suit was filed in the Small Causes Court for the rent and eviction way back in 1999 and it was decreed on 19.10.2002. Sri Garg brothers filed the revision against it wherein an additional issue was framed by the revisional court as to whether any lease deed was executed between the parties in presence of witnesses, if any, and its effect. The writ petition was filed by the landlord against framing of this issue and in that writ petition, this additional issue was quashed and the High Court was of the view that there was no necessity either to frame the said issue or to give finding thereupon. The revision was adjudicated and the same was dismissed on 27.9.2007 by Additional District Judge/ IV FTC, Haridwar. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged lease deed dated 22.7.1987 was filed by tenant Sri Garg brothers during the pendency of the revision. The tenant filed the writ petition against the order dated 27.9.2007 which was dismissed by Hon ble High Court but the time was granted to the tenant till 27.6.2008 to vacate the shop in question and in compliance of that directions of the High Court, the shop was vacated.

(3.) After taking the shop in question in his possession, landlord Surendra Kumar Sharma (private opposite party no.2) did not let Sri Garg brothers to go scot-free and made up his mind to initiate the proceedings against them alleging the lease deed dated 22.7.1987 to have been fabricated and forged just to justify the entire legal process. He ran from pillar to post to get an F.I.R. registered against Sri Garg brothers but that could not be lodged. He ultimately moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 27.3.2008 and the same was dismissed on 15.5.2008 in non-prosecution. However, Sri Surendra Kumar Sharma did not sit silent and he again strived to lodge an F.I.R. with the same facts and fortunately, this time he could attain the success. The same was lodged bearing crime no.376/2008 u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC against Sri Garg brothers, as above. The matter was investigated and the chargesheet was submitted by the police only for the offence of Section 420 IPC, whereupon the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and this chargesheet and the order of cognizance is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. Learned counsel of the applicant/petitioner has relied upon a precedent of this Court in the case of Goverdhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others, delivered by the court on 1.7.2010 in Crl. Miscl. Application (C-482) No.291 of 2005 . The learned Single Judge of this court in that matter, where a medical certificate with a wrong paternity name was filed in the court, an effort was made to take some benefit, then the Court was of the view that no offence of Section 420 IPC was made out, as the ingredients of the said offence were not attracted by this fabrication, if any. Even if the offence of Sections 468/472 IPC was made out, then the chargesheet was barred by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.