ASHOK KHURANA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is painful for the Court too, to proceed to dictate a judgment of this nature, which shaken up the very consciousness of the High Court and its sanctity of the fraternity, particularly when the fraternity from which I too hail, and its most revered members resort to a recourse to deliberately misleading the Court, for the undisclosed, reasons best known to them and that too when this percept and mode is adopted by none other than a Senior Counsel, whose dignity is being reckoned by the Full Court at the stage of his designation.

(2.) In present C-482 application, the applicants have put a challenge to the summoning order dtd. 27/3/2017 and 28/8/2017, which was passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Nainital, in Criminal Case No.1089 of 2017, State Vs. Ashok Khurana and others, in a pending trial for the proceedings under Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, which was got registered by way of FIR No.21 of 2015 at P.S. Bhowali, District Nainital. The investigation was carried and the Investigation Officer has submitted the Charge Sheet No.01/17 dtd. 10/1/2017 and Charge Sheet No.1A/17 5/8/2017, on which the cognizance have been taken by the court, vide its orders of 27/3/2017 and 28/8/2017.

(3.) There was a whole bunch of assisting counsels, who would be deemed to have been instrumental in drawing the pleadings of the C-482 application, who were almost about half a dozen of them in the C-482 application precisely the case of the present applicants, was that no sanctity, could be attached to the FIR registered against them for the reason being that the so called agreement dtd. 10/10/2012, which was in relation to Plot No.12, (Old No.1139) situated in village Rihad Bhowali, it was said to be in the name of one Servari Begam, who had subsequently let out the property to Dr. Vidhya Joshi, who had transferred the property to the different persons from time to time. It was referred to therein particularly in para 2 of present C482 application that as a consequence of the aforesaid transactions several "civil disputes are pending consideration in the court of Civil Judge, Nainital" it was alleged that respondent no.3 had succeeded to get a lease deed executed on 10/10/2012 from the son of Mr. Kiran Mehreshm, it was said that it was executed in collusion with the Sub Registrar of Naintal. It was referred thereto, therein that the description of the property given in the lease deed was contrary to its actual dimensions existence on the spot. In the FIR thus registered, there had been references made to the various endeavours, which were said to have been made to usurp the property, which was said to be constituted to be a part of Plot No.24, of which the lease was said to have been executed for 99 years in favour of Dr. Vidhya Joshi. It is contended in the FIR that Dr. Vidhya Joshi, had later on appointed one Priya Sharma, as a Managing trustee and Meera Ahuja, as a trustee of the property and accordingly, the property was directed to be dealt with. In furtherance of the said transaction, it was said that the aforesaid Mr. Meera Ahuja and Gaurav Ahuja got themselves mutated in order to fortify the fact, that they are the established owners under the garb of which a money transaction which took place by creating an interest over the property in favour of Mr. N.S. Hoon.