LAWS(ALL)-1999-8-219

PREETAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On August 02, 1999
PREETAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.A. and have gone through the record of the case as well.

(2.) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that he had recorded reasons in not accepting the charge sheet and not proceeding against the applicants. A careful examination of his order shows that the learned Magistrate had closely scrutinised the evidence. It appears that the accused persons had examined a sale deed in favour of the informant of their share in the ancestral property lying in Punjab. Their share in the entire property lying in Punjab as well as in Uttar Pradesh was 1/3rd. The accused persons are father and sons. The informant is brother of accused Preetam Singh. The prosecution or the complainant has not filed any reply to the affidavit of Preetam Singh. This affidavit discloses that accused Preetam Singh has executed a sale deed in favour of the informant, Dharam Singh, of a part of his share in the entire property, the land lying in Punjab. It can safely be inferred from this averment and it's non-rebuttal that vice versa Dharam Singh will also be required to execute another sale deed in favour of Preetam Singh and his sons from his share of the property lying in U. P. equivalent to the one Preetam transferred. This is in the nutshell the intention of the learned Magistrate in discussing this part of evidence. He has examined the rest of the evidence in the light of the above observations.

(3.) He had come to a conclusion that there exists prima facie no evidence for framing any charge under Sections 419/420/467/468/114, I.P.C. According to his order, even the prosecuting officer has also agreed with him. He had conceded that there exists no evidence for framing of charges under the above sections against any one of the accused. The Magistrate had discussed in detail the circumstances on the basis of which he had passed the above said order dated 25-5-1985. The order does not suffer from any serious infirmity.