SANJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P. C.) has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10th July 2007 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Crl. Revision No. 264/07 Vijay Kumar and others vs. State and another whereby the revision filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 7 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee to decide it afresh.

(2.) BRIEF facts, which emerge out from the record, are that the revisionist moved an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee stating therein inter-alia that his father had purchased property in favour of his wife Smt. Jagwati (mother of the applicant-revisionist) at Deoband and Ganeshpur, Roorkee. It is stated that his father executed a WILL, in favour of the revisionist-applicant on 15. 06. 1991. According to a compromise arrived at between the parties a plot situated at Poorvawali, Ganeshpur and out of 5 constructed shops, 3 shops to the western direction, as well as half part of the vacant plot to the western direction came in his possession. But, lateron the respondents, prepared a fabricated WILL of his father in respect of his aforesaid property and have got mutated the said property in favour of Smt. Jagwati and on the basis of that mutation order dated 22. 05. 2004 Smt. Jagwati has executed a sale deed of the aforesaid property in favour of Vijay Kumar and his wife Mamta Sharma. It is alleged that Sri, Bishwambhar had never executed WILL either in favour of Vijay or Smt. Jagwati. Alongwith the application the applicant-revisionist has filed copies of the relevant documents.

(3.) THE Trial Court found that two WILLS executed on the similar date i. e. of 04. 05. 1990 were available on the record, therefore considering all the facts and circumstance; the Trial Court took cognizance of the matter and after being satisfied that investigation is required, he directed the in-charge Inspector, Kotwali Gangnahar to register criminal case against the respondents vide his order dated 15. 06. 2007.