Court No. - 6
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2735 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Poonam John Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Amit Daga, appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 1.8.2020, cognizance order dated 29.10.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9452 of 2020 (State Vs. Poonam John & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
The brief facts, giving rise to the present application, are that an FIR was lodged against three persons under Sections 420, 504, 506 of the IPC, vide Case Crime No. 144 of 2020. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet came to be filed finding the complicity of all the three accused, with regard to the applicant, her complicity was found and she was charged under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the disputes in between the parties started on the basis of a lease deed executed by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2 (Annexure-2 to the application), whereby an area admeasuring about 150,000 square feet was given on lease for a period of 29 years and 11 months on a rent of Rs. 2,500/- per month. He draws my attention and argues that although the value of the property is more than 3 Crores, the deed was got executed at a premium of Rs. 1,90,000/- was paid thorough cheque. He further argues that subsequent to the said agreement, a compromise took place in between parties, whereby lease deed executed earlier was cancelled and it was agreed that with regard to the said, no further litigation will ensue in between the parties.
In the light of the said, counsel for the applicant argues that once a compromise have been arrived at, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on that ground alone.
Shri Amit Daga, appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 argues that the execution of the lease deed was clearly an illegal act as the applicant claimed to be the owner by virtue of an adoption deed executed by one Ms. Babra Josua in favour of the applicant. The said deed was a forged deed as is evident from the letter of Sub Registrar, contained in Anneuxre CA-24 of the counter affidavit to the effect that adoption deed was a forged document.
In the light of the said, Shri Admit Daga argues that at the time of the execution of the lease deed itself, it was demonstrated that the applicant was not the owner of the property in question and was not authorized to execute the lease deed, as she was well aware that the adoption deed is a forged document. He thus, argues that clearly a case of forgery is made out against the applicant.
On the basis of the arguments as advanced and pleadings, it is well established that the intent of the applicant was to lease out the property to opposite party no. 2 illegally, on the basis of forged adoption deed. In view thereof, no good ground for interference is made out.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 S. Rahman