SANAJY GAUR ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF U. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have approached this Court through this application under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned charge sheet under Sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C. dtd. 24/3/2012, cognizance order dtd. 30/7/2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2618 of 2011, titled State Vs. Anees Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 2011, under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

(2.) Briefly, the facts leading to the petition are that on the basis of a written complaint given by Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate opposite party no.2, the above noticed case crime was registered, wherein it is alleged that the land comprised in Gata No. 592 measuring 0.809 hectares, owned by Savitri Devi D/o Awadh Baksh Singh was purchased by complainant through Jamuna Prasad S/o Puttu Lal. In the said sale deed, Jamuna Prasad got entered names of his daghter-in-law Gyanwati and his friend Anees Khan, therefore, a civil suit bearing no. 132 of 2004, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. Savitri Devi and others was filed to seek a decree of declaration for correction of the said sale deed. The suit was decreed in favour of the complainant opposite party no.2 and the names of Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan were ordered to be removed. Later on, Sanjay Gaur S/o Puttu Lal (applicant no.1) in connivance with his relatives namely, Gyanwati W/o Jay Prakash and Anees Khan S/o Hasan Khan entered into a conspiracy to grab 3/4th share of the complainant's holding, who by forging his signatures got prepared documents and got executed a sale deed in his favour. As per the allegations, the witnesses to the instrument of sale also facilitated the commission of crime. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur. After registration of the case, the investigation was carried out and through the impugned final report under Sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet against the applicants was filed. Hence, this application.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicants has argued that the allegations contained in the F.I.R itself shows that the complainant opposite party no.2 has already filed a civil suit bearing no. 132 of 2004, and the case of the prosecution is based upon the documentary material, which shows that the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature, but in order to abuse of the process of law, the complainant has falsely implicated the applicants in the impugned criminal case. Learned counsel submits that the complainant acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of sale deed dtd. 11/3/1996 and as per this, vendor Savitri Devi had transferred all her rights in the said property in favour of four purchasers namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan, and the instrument of sale is a registered instrument, which bears the signatures of all the parties including the witnesses, therefore, there cannot be a doubt about the number of purchasers.