MOHD DAUD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an applica ­tion under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 6212 of 2004, Babu Ram v. Chandrabhan and others, under sections 420, 471, 465, 468 and 120 -B, I.P.C. police station Mandi Saharanpur district Saharanpur pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sa ­haranpur.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that complainant No. 2 Babu Ram son of Prem Singh filed a com ­plaint against the accused applicants and co -accused Chandrabhan. Mustaqeem, Babu Ram son of Buddhu, Padam and Rati Ram under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C with these allegations that complainant Babu Ram and his brother Satish were owners of house bearing Municipal No. 11/1273 -1/1 situate at mohalla Mehdi Sarai Saharanpur police station Mandi Saharanpur and it was their ancestral property. During the com ­munal riots of 1991 -92 the complainant and his brother Satish left that house and started to reside at mohalla Mohit Nagar, Saharanpur due to fear of Muhammadans. On 12.10.1992 accused Chandrabhan. Mustaqeem, Babu Ram, Padam and Rati Ram thatched a conspiracy and they pre ­pared a fictitious power of attorney in the name of the complainant and his brother Satish Kumar by impersonating two other persons as Babu Ram and Satish Kumar and produced them before the Sub Regis ­trar and got that power of attorney regis ­tered in favour of accused No. 1 Chandrabhan and on the basis of this ficti ­tious power of attorney in favour of the accused No. 1 Chandrabhan, Mustaqeem accused No. 2 got a sale deed of the afore ­said house of the complainant Babu Ram and Satish Kumar executed in his favour 30.4.1993 for a sum of Rs. 29,000/ -. Ac ­cused Babu Ram son of Buddhu and Padam had signed the sale deed as mar ­ginal witnesses. Thereafter on 13.5.1996 accused No. 2 Mustaqeem sold this house to accused No. 6 Shamshad Begum (applicant No. 2 in this petition) for a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - and accused No. 7 Mohd. Daud (applicant No. 1 in this petition) signed the sale deed as a witness. Thereaf ­ter the accused got the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated by the police in respect of the said house. However, the City Magistrate has passed order on 16.8.2003 that he has no jurisdiction to de ­cide the question of ownership and dropped the proceedings. Then the com -plainant and his brother Satish Kun came to know about the aforesaid fictitic power of attorney. The complainant a his brother are still in possession of the house. Their names were entered as owi of the house in the record of Nagarr hapalika Saharanpur and they are depo ing its house tax and water tax. Therefc it was prayed that action should be taken against the accused persons and a direct should be given to the police to registe case against them.

(3.) I have perusefl.the affidavit in support of the application under st 482 Cr.P.C., counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and also heard learned Co for both the parties.