ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This application preferred under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the applicant against the judgment and order dtd. 20/4/2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Miscellaneous Case No.454 of 2015 Ashawani Kumar Sonker Vs. Dharmendra Chhabra and Others, whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was rejected as well as the judgment and order dtd. 25/10/2017 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision Case No.120 of 2015 Ashwani Kumar Sonker Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, the said revision was rejected affirming the order dtd. 20/4/2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) The facts of the case in nutshell are that an application under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant before the trial court stating therein that his father was the owner of property No.11 Moti Bazar New No.25/27/3 Moti Bazar; who has executed a power of attorney dtd. 18/5/2001 in favour of respondent No.2-Dharmender Chhabra and Vijay Kumar, which was duly registered on 2/7/2001 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dehradun; respondent No.2 on 26/9/2002, in the garb of the power of attorney, executed a sale deed in favour of his wife i.e. respondent No.3 by declaring himself as sole power of attorney holder by erasing the name of Vijay Kumar; when this facts came into the knowledge of applicant, he asked them to vacate the disputed property and they threatened the applicant with life; thereafter, he moved a representation before the S.S.P. Dehradun on 22/9/2014 disclosing these facts; when these facts came to the knowledge of his father, he initiated the proceeding for cancellation of the said power of attorney dtd. 18/5/2001, which was duly cancelled on 25/9/2014 in the office of competent authority. The applicant on the very same day gave the information about the cancellation of power of attorney through his advocate by post, which was duly received by the respondent on 1/10/2014. In spite of the information, respondent No.2 again executed a sale deed in his wife's favour on 13/3/2015 for the property under dispute. Thereafter, the applicant on 6/4/2015 moved an application before the police and asking them to take action against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and lodge FIR, but, no action has been taken by the police.