PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of proceedings of S.T. No.419/13 pending in the court of 9th Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur arising out of Crime No. 252/12 registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, for the offence pun-ishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC so far as it is against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that against the petitioner and other co-accused persons charge sheet of aforesaid crime has been filed before the Trial court concerned, in which, the story of the prosecution is that house nos. 2155 and 2157; di-version seat no. 115; area 30390 sq. ft situated at Subhadra Kumar Chouhan ward, Wright Town, Jabalpur, is the property of Municipal Co-rporation, Jabalpur and till 1970 the aforesaid property was leased out in favour of one Saiyad Abdul Gafoor and notices were served on his legal heirs and they filed application for renewal of the lease and his legal heirs had deposited the tax till 2007 and Saiyad Wahidul Haq who was legal heir of Saiyad Abdul Gafoor filed another application for renewal of the lease on 14.11.1971 and on 29.8.1995. Accordingly, Ashok Kumar or his father had no interest or title in the property but accused Ashok Kumar, Ravindra Sukheja, Anirudh Sukheja, Baldeoraj Anand and Daljeet Mehta, on the basis of the forged sale certificate purported to be issued on 30.6.1966 by Managing Officer of the Evacuee property, Indore and on the basis of these forged documents, they obtained fresh lease deed executed in favour of Ashok Kumar and after that, they sold the land to Rajesh Juneja and Tarachand Khatri getting crores of rupees.

(3.) It is submitted that in this case there is no iota of material to infer that the petitioner was indulged with the other accused persons in getting the property or selling it to third person as his claim, litigation and objection were against all other accused persons. It is very strange that because he withdrew objections and litigations, it has been alleged that he committed aforesaid crime while the property was under litigations, therefore, he withdrew his objections and litigations which was his right and on the basis of withdrawal of the litigations and objections it cannot be said that he was having nexus with other accused persons. Hence, the aforesaid proceeding against the petitioner is contrary to law and causing injustice and if the same is continued it would be the misuse of the process of the court. Thus, the same be quashed.