BINDU DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF background of the case as is emanating from the pleadings as set out in the writ petition and annexures appended thereto that a unregistered will deed was shown to have been executed by the mother of Harshwardhan Singh namely Smt. Dev Kumari Singh on 8.10.1993 in favour of Budhoo @ Ramesh Singh. Said Budhoo @ Ramesh Singh further has executed registered power of attorney relating to the said property in question in favour of Dinesh Mishra S/o Heera Lal on 30.10.2000 and based on the said power of attorney Dinesh Mishra S/o Heera Lal got mutated name of Budhoo @ Ramesh Singh on 4.11.2000 and then has executed registered sale deed of the disputed property in favour of Smt. Uma Rai W/o Ram Nagina Rai on 23.8.2004 in which Bindu Devi W/o Dinesh Mishra is marginal witness. Harshwardhan S/o late Diwakar Singh, respondent No. 4 after acquiring knowledge of the fact that entire proceedings in reference of execution unregistered will deed; in respect of registered power of attorney and in respect of execution of sale deed; all are forged and manipulated proceedings and that at no point of time his mother Smt. Dev Kumari Singh has ever proceeded to execute any will deed worth name in favour of Budhoo @ Ramesh Singh S/o late Lal Bahadur Singh and entire proceedings were designed proceedings in order to grab the property in question, after death of Smt. Dev Kumari Singh on 5.9.1994, initiated proceeding under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act then Tehsildar concerned on 6.1.2005 passed order mentioning therein that the order dated 4.11.2000 of mutation has been obtained by fraud and accordingly same has been cancelled. The informant thereafter after finding that entire things have been manipulated and fabricated instituted suit being Civil Suit No. 49 of 2005 for declaration to declare the will deed dated 8.10.1993 and the sale deed dated 23.8.2004 as void so that none of his rights are effected. Said suit in question has been pending and therein written statement has been filed by dependent Nos. 1 on 31.6.2007.

(2.) THE first informant in his wisdom in his turn as transaction in question was totally forged and manipulated and based on the said manipulation, as there has been apparent cheating and he has been derived of his lawful property has proceeded to lodge First Information Report on 25.7.2014 registered as Case Crime No. 371 of 2014 U/S 419, 420, 467, and 471 IPC P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi. The mind set for lodging FIR has been that the civil suit would only clear the clouds that has been created on his title but what about an offence that has been committed under the Indian Penal Code, has proceeded to lodge FIR by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and based on the same FIR has been lodged, thus impelling the petitioners to be before this Court with the prayer quoted above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sheo Ram Singh, submitted before this Court that dispute in question is primarily of civil nature and whatever issues are being raised by respondent No. 4 Harshwardhan Singh in the suit in question virtually same issues have been mentioned in the impugned FIR, in view of this, this Court should in the facts of the case, come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioners and should proceed to quash the impugned FIR.