JAI PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kshitiz Shailendra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.16323 of 2016(State Vs. Jai Prakash Gupta and others), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 743(wrongly typed as 747) of 2015, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad. Further prayer is to quash the charge-sheet dated 15.07.2016 and cognizance order dated 01.10.2016 passed in the said case.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case as per the pleadings exchanged in the case, are that one Ashwani Kumar Bansal, father of opposite party no.2 is said to have executed an unregistered will in favour of Jai Prakash Gupta, the applicant on 25.07.2007, which was later on registered on 15.10.2013, under Section 40 of the Indian Registration Act, before the Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Tanda, District Rampur. On the basis of the said will mutation proceedings were initiated by the applicant in which the Tehsildar (Judicial), Moradabad, passed order dated 30.09.2015 in his favour and the Khatauni of the concerned Khata was corrected by mutating the name of the applicant. The opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 30.09.2015, in Revision No.C-20151300001638, under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and in the said revision the order dated 30.09.2015 was set-aside by the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad by order dated 08.09.2016. The Revision No.2098 of 2016 field by the applicant, before the Board of Revenue, challenging the order dated 08.09.2016 was dismissed by order dated 10.08.2017. The applicant filed Writ B No.4068 of 2018, and it is the case of the opposite party no.2 that although he had field the caveat, but ignoring the caveat, the petition was filed, in which misleading arguments were advanced. The interim order dated 25.05.2018 was passed, but a perusal thereof shows that the applicant represented before this Court in the writ petition, that Ashwani Kumar Bansal was the father of the applicant, whereas, it is submitted that the applicant was his servant and it was so mentioned in the alleged will itself. The will deprived all the legal heirs of the property and was in favour of the servant. The opposite party no.2 is said to have filed counter affidavit in the writ petition which matter is said to be pending.