PARVATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri O.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh through Video Conferencing, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party and Sri Ghanshyam, learned A.G.A.Ist assisted by Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.500 of 2015, under Sections 419 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 of I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi.

(3.) As per FIR version, Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath Yadav and Gayatri Devi wife of Lalji purchased Gata No. 674 area 0.160 hectare and Gata No.673 area 0.173 hectare on 09.12.1998 from one Rajai @ Rajnath and name of purchasers were mutated in the revenue record by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.03.1999. Accused Shiv Nath son of Munshi by preparing forged papers moved an application dated 30.05.2001, under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H.Act and on that application the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 11.06.2001 to rectify the address of Parvati Devi as 26/237 B 10 Shyampuri Colony, Block B, Meerapur Basahi, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi in place of 24/2 Tajpur, Ardali Bazar, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi, which was mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 09.12.1998. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Gayatri Devi wife of complainant's brother moved a review/recall application to cancel the rectification alleging that Parvati is not the Parvati, who is mentioned in the sale deed. On 20.11.2002, Consolidation Officer declared that there is no lady in the village in the name of Parvati Devi wife of Shiv Nath @ Yogendra because she has no locus with her name. On 09.07.2003, the properties of both the purchasers were earmarked. Property no. 143(a) was recorded in favour of Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath and property no. 143(b) was recorded in favour of Gayatri Devi. On an application of complainant Lalji Yadav to District Magistrate an enquiry was conducted Lalmani, Village Secretary, who had added the name of Parvati, wife of Shiv Nath @ Yogendra was found guilty and was suspended. A first information report under Section 419 , 420 I.P.C. was registered in which charge sheet was submitted on 18.06.2017, thereafter, Lalmani is absconding. On 18.07.2018, Chief Revenue Officer declared that Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath Yadav and Gayatri Devi, wife of Lalji are equal co-sharer of disputed property. Address of Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath Yadav was kept intact. Against the order dated 18.07.2018, Parvati Devi approached to this Court through Writ-B No. 5423 of 2018 (Parwati Devi And Another Vs. Chief Revenue Officer And Another) in which a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order 18.07.2018. On 28.08.2015, Lalji Yadav had lodged an FIR with the allegation that the husband of applicant-Parvati Devi is an Advocate and by exercising undue influence has obtained the order dated 11.06.2001. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is a case of civil nature, writ is also pending before this Court for its admission. He submits that the applicant is suffering because her husband is a practising advocate. It is also submitted that the applicant is an illitrate house wife aged about 60 years and has no concern with the incident alleged in the FIR. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. She has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant and she is languishing in jail since 02.01.2020.