Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28390 of 2019 Applicant :- Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth,Hari Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3rd, Chitrakoot in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2017 as well as for quashing the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Chitrakoot in case no. 1923 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, police station Pahadi, district Chitrakoot.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order dated 21.09.2017 and the order of revisional court have been passed in a routine manner without considering the facts of the matter. It was submitted that the complaint makes out a prima facie case against opposite party no. 2 to 7 and there were allegations against them that they have forged panchayatnama by making forged thumb impression of the father of the applicant and thus, a case of forgery, using forged documents as well as cheating is made out against opposite party no. 2 to 7. The applicant/complainant has supported the allegations of cheating and forgery in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and similarly PW-1 and PW-2 examined under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported these allegations and thus, a case for summoning of opposite party no. 2 to 7 was made out but learned trial court committed error by dismissing the complaint vide order dated 21.09.2017. Similarly, revisional court also did not consider the matter in correct prospective and passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred certain documents of revenue court and contended that a prima facie case was made out against opposite party no. 2 to 7 and thus, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Awadh Behari And Ors. vs. State of U.P. And Anr. reported in 2016 0 Supreme(All) 1153.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and no case for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
It is apparent from the provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C. that if after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint and every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for doing so. In the instant case, the allegations in the complaint were that after death of grandfather of applicant/complainant, names of his four sons were recorded in respect of land left by their father but the brothers of father of the complainant and other opposite parties forged a panchnama by making forged thumb impression of the father of the applicant in order to usurp the property of the father of the applicant. Initially a complaint was filed by Ram Krishan, father of applicant but as he has expired during the pendency of the complaint, name of applicant was substituted to pursue the complaint. Learned trial court has made detailed discussion about all relevant facts and found that after death of the father of original complaint, the complaint was filed on false and baseless facts. The alleged panchnama was not even a registered document. It was found that the property left by deceased is in possession of his four sons. After considering the matter, complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.09.2017. Revision filed against that order, was also dismissed by learned Additional Session Judge-3rd, Chitrakoot vide order dated 31.01.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Awadh Behari And Ors.(supra), but the facts of this case law are entirely on different footing. The ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC were discussed in that case, however, they are made out in the present matter.
Considering entire facts of the matter, no prima facie case is made out against private respondents. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in the impugned orders. It is well settled that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of court and to prevent any miscarriage of justice. Inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the instant case no such case is made out so as to warrant any interference by invoking the inherent powers.
Instant petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Anand