ROHIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above captioned four writ petitions have been filed for challenging an FIR in Case Crime No. 762 of 2011, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Kasna, district G.B. Nagar. They have been heard altogether and are being disposed of by means of this common order. The brief facts of the case are that on an application dated 10.10.2011 given by Smt. Pragati Shukla, wife of Rajendra Shanker Shukla to the Inspector General (Registration), an FIR was lodged by the Sub-registrar, Sadar, Gautam Budh Nagar on 29.10.2011 at PS Kasna, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The FIR alleges that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by some persons agricultural plots Nos. 731 and 784, area 0.6072 in village Suthiana Pargana, Dadri tahsil, District Gautam Budh Nagar which was in the name of Smt. Pragati Shukla a sale-deed had fraudulently been executed in favour of the petitioners Rohit Kumar and Ashok Kumar Sharma by setting up some woman to impersonate Pragati Shukla. The witnesses of the sale-deed Raj Pal Sharma and Raj Kumar falsely identified the imposter to be Smt. Pragati Shukla.

(2.) The arrest of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma was stayed by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2011 observing that he may have been a bona fide purchaser and that he had lost the property and also he was required to fight a person to whom he had handed over some consideration for the property, hence his case was distinguishable from the impostors and from the persons who executed the sale-deed and from the marginal witnesses, who identified the impostors.

(3.) A separate petition was filed by Rohit Kumar and Raj Pal, wherein it was contended that the petitioner Rohit Kumar was a bona fide purchaser and Raj Pal was a witness of the sale-deed and that as a matter of fact the sale-deed had been executed by Smt. Pragati Shukla, respondent No. 4 and in a mala fide manner she had approached the Inspector General (Registration) to lodge the impugned report.