ONKAR NATH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT application has been moved under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2488 of 2005, Sri Baleshwar Prasad v. Onkar Nath Dubey, pending under Section 193, IPC in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate -II, Varanasi and order dated 2 -8 -05 passed in this Complaint Case whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Section 193, IPC.

(2.) HEARD Sri Sameer Jain learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and have gone through the record.

(3.) A perusal of the copy of the complaint filed by the ADM (Civil Supply) Varanasi, which is Annexure -1, shows that according to the complainant who is ADM, Civil Supply, Varanasi, opposite party No. 2 Sri Radhey Shyam Dubey the real brother of the applicant accused Onkar Nath Dubey moved application on 20 -5 -05 that he was owner of half portion of House No. S42/241 Taktakpur, City Varanasi which is situated in Bhuneshwar Colony, Varanasi. He purchased rest half portion from the applicant, got constructed the house and the accommodation on the ground floor was given on rent to the office of Indian Food Corporation. The tenant on 28 -6 -91 vacated it and its possession was given to the complainant opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 was in service out of Varanasi and taking its advantage his brother who is the applicant in this case obtained a Photostat copy of the original order, got deleted the name of opposite party No.2 and got written his name in the column of the landlord and thereafter moved application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972. The applicant filed Case No. 77 of 1997 he did not implead opposite party No. 2 as party and got the house declared vacant on 3 -12 -1992 and thereafter got it released in his favour on 4 -1 -93. Thereafter the complainant moved application to recall the order. The Case bearing No. 77 of 1991 was filed. Consequently Rent Control and Eviction Officer vacated the release order dated 4 -1 -93. Revision was preferred against the order but learned District Judge dismissed the revision No. 1/2004 while passing order dated 14 -3 -05. Thus according to opposite party No.2 order dated 28 -6 -91 was got forged by the applicant and thereafter it was produced as original order and a false order of release was obtained. When application was moved by opposite party No. 2 enquiry was made under Section 340 Cr. P.C. and ADM (Civil Supply) who has filed the complaint arrived at the conclusion that by forging the copy of the original order it was produced as original paper in release case and thus it was misused and forged order was produced in the Court and thereby order was obtained from the Court of ADM (Civil Supply), Varanasi.