Reserve Judgment
Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29477 of 2009 Applicant :- Chandra Pal Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singhal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S S Rajpoot
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard Sri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Saqib Mizan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of U.P. and Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.09.2008, submitted in Case Crime No. 337 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station – Khair, District – Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh as Case No. 2835 of 2009 – State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Pal and Others, as well as all consequential proceedings of aforesaid case.
Brief facts as transpire from the record are that opposite party no. 2 lodged a First Information Report (Annexure No. 1) against the applicants alleging therein that property of one Jalaluddin Khan @ Shami Khan was sold away by an imposter to Chandra Pal and the remaining 02 applicants were the marginal witnesses of the sale deed (Annexure No. 2). After investigation charge sheet (Annexure No. 6) was filed against the applicants, against which the applicants have approached this Court by means of the present application.
Learned counsel for applicants contended that applicant no.
1 Chandra Pal Singh is purchaser of the property of one Jalaluddin Khan @ Shami Khan by way of registered sale deed and applicant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Amar Pal Singh and Nawal Singh are marginal witnesses of the same. A suit for cancellation of sale deed (Annexure No. 8) was filed by one Shami Khan. Revenue and civil proceedings are going between the parties and it is yet to be decided as to whether the sale deed in question was executed by the alleged imposter is genuine or not? The matter pertains to civil dispute and opposite party no. 2 has wrongly and illegally given it a cloak of criminal nature, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Applicant no. 1 is bonafide purchaser for consideration and if the prosecution allegations are found to be correct then he will be the only person who would stand cheated and a person aggrieved therefrom. It is worth mentioning that the earstwhile owner and seller of the property in question has initiated only civil proceedings through his Power of Attorney holder i.e. Javed Ali, and has not filed any criminal case against the applicants. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 are neither vender nor vendee rather they are merely marginal witnesses of the sale deed in question. Hence, the criminal prosecution initiated by opposite party no.2 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed the above contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and have urged that applicants are guilty of grabbing the property in question by fraud. The charge sheet has been filed against them after detailed investigation. The criminal prosecution of the applicants is neither illegal nor bad in law and no interference by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of record reveals that civil proceedings in respect to property in question are pending between the parties. A suit for cancellation of sale deed is pending and genuineness of the same will be tested in that proceeding. So far as involvement of applicants in purchasing the property in question by way of impersonation is concerned, same will be decided only after evidence is lead by the parties in this regard before the trial court. Since the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Hence the reliefs prayed by the applicants for quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings of the case in question, cannot be granted.
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that civil proceedings are going on between the parties, applicants are permitted to move discharge application(s) through counsel before the court below alongwith certified copy of this order within four weeks' from today, and in case any such application(s) is/are moved, same shall be heard and decided expeditiously, if possible within three months' from the date of such application(s), after hearing the parties, in accordance with law by means of reasoned and speaking order.
No coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of their discharge application(s).
In case of failure on the part of applicants in moving the discharge application within the aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.
It is clarified that after disposal of discharge application(s), the applicants will be subject to regular process of the court concerned, including bail etc.
With above, directions/observations the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.05.2018 A. Verma