PREM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these criminal revisions are against the common judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application moved by the accused persons (different revisionists before this Court) under Section 239 of CrPC for their discharge has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by one Smt. Prabhawati against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/504 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that her father late Ram Avadh Singh was a freedom fighter and retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh and was given 50 acres of agricultural land under the Government Grant Act. She is the only issue of her father. Her father passed away on 10.06.1999 and thereafter various anti-social elements tried to grab the property of her late father. The complainant is an old widow and inter alia is looking after her ancestral property. The accused and one of the revisionist before this Court is an MLA and former Minister, namely, Prem Prakash Singh, S/o Shri Keshav Nath Singh, resident of Village Shakti Farm who is alleged to have grabbed the property of the complainant by conspiracy. There are other allegations as well. It has further been stated that under the conspiracy her son Late Anand Singh was continuously threatened. It has further come in the first information report that Prem Prakash Singh, referred above, prepared a forged and fabricated Will, in which the testator has been shown to be her father Late Ram Avadh Singh and the beneficiaries are, inter alia, herself i.e. Smt. Prabhavati Devi, Indu Singh and Maa Shakti Peeth Trust, of which Prem Prakash Singh is the chairman. The first information report was challenged by the revisionists before this Court by means of criminal writ petitions, which were dismissed as infructuous. Subsequently, revisionists filed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court challenging the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case which was also dismissed by this Court as the Court did not find any merit in interfering with the matter, though liberty was granted to the revisionists to take all the factual pleas before the court below for their discharge at an appropriate stage.

(3.) On the strength of the evidence, which was placed by the prosecution before the learned Magistrate where the learned Magistrate was to formally frame charges under Section 240 of CrPC, an application was moved before the learned Magistrate under Section 239 of CrPC for discharge, in which a detailed order has been passed rejecting the application for discharge moved by the revisionists. This order has been challenged before this Court.