OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2356/2006, State v. Om Prakash & Others, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur. On the basis of the First Information Report dated 18.4.2006, lodged by Tehsildar, Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar against the applicant Om Prakash and 5 others, the investigation was initiated which resulted in the submission of the chargesheet under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 read with Section 120B IPC.

(2.) THE controversy qua this petition is a piece of land ad measuring 17 bigha 12 biswa (1.113 hectare) situated in village Rammpura, Pargana Rudrapur, Tehsil Kiccha, bearing Khet No. 49 (49/2), Khata No. 65, which is bhumidhari in nature. The said land was purchased on 27.10.1980 by Om Prakash, the applicant petitioner, from one Sri Hakam Ram. On 13.4.2006, the petitioner executed the sale deed of the same land in favour of Prem Lal, S/o Bhagwan Das, Managing Director, UT Builders & Promoters Limited, Sector 34A, Chandigarh. It is pertinent to mention that the vendee disclosed his local address as village Jakarpur, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar at the time of purchasing this land on 13.4.2006. The land was purchased by Prem Lal for a consideration of rupees thirty lakhs and, accordingly, stamp duty, as per rules, to the tune of rupees three lakhs was paid by him to the Government.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner that Om Prakash (applicant petitioner) was only a vendee simpliciter , and if any act of swindling of stamp duty has been committed, the blame can be attached only to the vendee Prem Lal Midda, who might have committed the same in connivance with the Patwari concerned. He further contended that the matter of evasion of stamp duty, which was later assessed along with penalty to the tune of rupees one crore twenty two lakhs, was agitated before the competent authority/Additional District Magistrate, who after hearing the matter reduced the same to the tune of rupees ninety lakhs twenty eight thousand, and the same was also deposited by Prem Lal Midda, as is divulged from Annexure 2, filed with the rejoinder affidavit.