RAM PRATAP PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 24.4.2001 passed in Case No. 275 of 2001 (State of U.P. v. Ram Pratap Pandey and Ors.) arising out of case Crime No. 28 of 2000, P.S. Kerakat, district Jaunpur whereby the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur passed an order summoning the revisionists under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists Sri Manoj Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 Sri T.V. Pandey and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and have perused the record.

(3.) A first information report was registered by opposite party No. 2 against the revisionists on 19.1.2000 that she is the bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 7.10.1995, which was executed by the son of the deceased Krishna Narain Pandey. Krishna Narain Pandey died on 15.12.1990 and whose heirs names were substituted in the revenue record on 21.1.1991. The said revisionists in connivance with one Udai Prakash Pandey, Advocate got executed power of attorney on 19.11.1992 as if it is executed by Krishna Narain Pandey the said power of attorney was filed in the court of Tehsildar, Kerakat, Jaunpur with the result Assistant Consolidation Officer had entered the name of Ram Pratap and Govind Narain in the revenue records. In support of her case, the opposite party No. 2 had also filed the death certificate of Krishna Narain Pandey who died on 15.12.1990 whereas the said power of attorney was prepared by him, after two years of his death it was directed that the matter be investigated by the Consolidation Officer, Kerakat, Jaunpur and the first information report be registered against them. It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that no forgery or cheating has been done by the revisionists. Krishna Narain Pandey had executed a Will in respect of the property on 12.10.1990 thereafter the applicants/revisionists had applied for mutation of their names on 15.10.1990. The mutation application was registered as Case No. 109/49/220. On the basis of the mutation application an order was passed on 7.6.1993 mutating the names of the applicants in place of Krishna Narain Pandey. The opposite party No. 2 in order to cause harassment to the revisionists lodged a first information report on frivolous allegations that the forged Will was prepared on the basis of power of attorney merely on the basis of an advertisement issued by the court of Naib Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, which discloses the date of Will as 19.11.1992. Only on account of the advertisement showing the will as 19.11.1992, the opposite party No. 2 came with a case that the executor of the Will had died on 15.12.1990 and not on 19.11.1992, therefore, the forgery has been committed by the accused/revisionists. Even after the investigation of the case the police had found the allegation made against the revisionists false and as such submitted a final report on 24.3.2000 but the final report was not accepted and further investigation was ordered and on the basis of the further investigation the police collected some materials and submitted a charge-sheet on 28.8.2000 and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Jaunpur took cognizance and issued summons against the applicants on 24.4.2001. The entire evidence collected by the police does not at all disclose the commission of offence. There is no evidence against the applicants that they have committed any offence of forgery in the Will dated 12.10.1990 executed by Krishna Narain Pandey only on account of some cuttings and over writing about the date of execution of Will and the date of birth of the testator (Krishna Narain Pandey), the court below found that the Will has been forged and there is manipulation in the record of the court of Naib Tehsildar.