ANAND KUMAR @ SANJAY LALWANI Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA LALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal revision No.702/2012, whereby the order dated 26.6.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Bhopal in a complaint case R.T.No.4798/2012 was confirmed, in which a complaint was registered against the applicant for offence punishable under sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120- B of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that, in the year 1999, a joint application was submitted before Assistant Settlement Officer, Bhopal for endorsement of partition between the parties. The application was moved by Smt.Prema Jain, Chandra Parakh and his brothers, Mohna Lalwani and Dilip Singh Mehta. The property was of Shri Panmal Parakh, who died in the year 1981, leaving behind 2 wives, 5 daughters and 4 sons. From his first wife Suraj Bai, he had 3 daughters, Mohna Lalwani, Prema Jain and Roop Mehta. Out of them, Roop Mehta has expired and her sons Karan Singh Mehta, Pradeep Singh Mehta and Dilip Singh Mehta were representing her estate. Shri Panmal Parakh had 2 daughters and 3 sons from his second wife Bhawari Bai. Chandra Parakh and his brothers had represented the estate of the deceased Bhawari Bai. The application of the settlement was signed by Prema Jain and Mohna Lalwani themselves, whereas it was signed by the applicant on behalf of Chandra Kumar Parakh and his brothers and Dilip Singh Mehta. After Mohna Lalwani, the complainant/the respondent became her successor to the estate. After getting the application on 30.9.1999, which was supported by a memorandum of family settlement signed by those persons and a power of attorney given by Chandra Parakh and his brothers and another power of attorney signed by Shri Dilip Singh Mehta. After considering the documents filed, the settlement officers accepted the partition and vide order dated 7.12.1999, mutation was directed for various pieces of lands. On 14.11.2011, the complainant Subhash Lalwani has lodged a complaint against the applicant and other persons that the property was of Panmal Parakh and the particulars of the properties were given in the complaint. It is alleged that in the alleged family settlement, none of the children of Panmal Parakh appeared before the settlement officer. The applicant Anand @ Sanjay Lalwani who was son of Mohna Lalwani appeared on behalf of his cousins and step brothers of his mother. Smt. Mohna Lalwani and Smt.Prema Jain were old ladies and they were not conversant with English language. In that partition, the applicant was not authorized by Dilip Singh Mehta for the property, which was considered in the partition. In that family settlement, Karan Singh Mehta and Pradeep Singh Mehta did not participate.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.