MUKESH KUMAR Vs. NAGJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [in brief "the Code"] has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by ASJ, Khacharod, District Ujjain in Criminal Revision No.88/2015, whereby affirmed the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by JMFC, Khacharod taking cognizance against the applicant for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Criminal Case No.61/2015.

(2.) Non-applicant No.1/complainant has filed a complaint against the applicant and other 5 persons stating that the Non-applicant No.1 and his wife Ayodhyabai have never executed sale-deeds in favour of the applicant and Non-applicant No.1's sons have never given their consent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Magistrate has given ample opportunity to the Non- applicant No.1 for producing the handwriting expert's report but he fails to do so. Without the handwriting expert's report, it cannot be proved that the Non-applicant No.1 and his wife have not executed the sale-deeds in favour of the applicant. For this purpose, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Asharam v/s Suraj Singh Baghel [2011 (1) MPLJ 624]. It is further submitted that the Non-applicant No.1 has produced witness Bhomsingh who is not the attesting witness. The applicant has filed the affidavit of the actual attesting witness Bhomsingh who stated that he had attested the sale- deeds in question. It is further submitted that disputed sale- deeds were executed on 27.05.2000; whereas after lapse of more than 8 years complaint has been filed on 19.12.2008. This fact shows the conduct of the complainant which should be taken into consideration at the time of taking cognizance. For this purpose, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sirajul v/s State of U.P. [(2015) 9 SCC 201]. It is also submitted that there is a vague allegation in the complaint that the applicant has taken illegal possession of the agricultural land of the Non-applicant No.1, but the date has not been mentioned in the complaint and no reason has been assigned why the Non-applicant No.1 has not immediately taken any action against the applicant. The whole story of the Non-applicant No.1 is a concocted and false; whereas from the bare perusal of these sale-deeds it is apparent that the photographs of the sellers are affixed and sale-deeds have been duly executed and registered in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, prima-facie execution of the sale-deed should be accepted. For this purpose, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh v/s Smt. Maniraj Kumari [1996 RN 377].