Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13972 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Neeraj Devi And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 17.01.2018, cognizance dated 02.04.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 793 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 253 of 2017, under Sections 419,420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kishani, District-Mainpuri, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are bonafide purchaser under a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2016 executed by Rajnath and Bhagwan Shri and that their names have also been recorded in the revenue record. It is thus submitted that there is no cheating or fabrication of the document. However, perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegation appears to be that though the sale deed has been executed by Rajnath and Bhagwan Shri giving the plot number owned by them, however, in the description of the boundaries, the description of the property of opposite party no.2 has been made. While learned counsel for the applicant vehemently refused such allegation, which remains question to which that may be adjudicated after appraisal of evidence.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2018/Lbm/-