Satyawant Govind Rao v. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri Krishana Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the state respondents.

2. The instant petition has been preferred to allow and set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.143 of 2024 (Satyawant Govind Rao vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Case no.1711 of 2012 (State vs. Brijesh Govind Rao and others) arising out of Case Crime no.934 of 2011 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna District Kushi Nagar rejecting the discharge application dated 24.12.2023.

3. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is on legal issue only and as such the process to issue notice to respondent no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

4. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the execution of sale deed was between two real brothers, wherein the petitioner was rendering his services before Indian Air Force and for the same purpose he was posted at West Bengal, that is far away from his native place situated at Kushinagar. State of Uttar Pradesh being ignorant of proceedings although, application for mutation has already been preferred but the same was pending in shape of mutating name of the petitioner over the property which has been purchased through the registered sale deed by the petitioner from his real brother.

5. Due to pendency of mutation, real brother of the petitioner executed a fresh sale deed for the same plot in favour of respondent no.2 and once respondent no.2 proceeded for seeking mutation of his name over the same property wherein the mutation proceeding initiated at the behest of the petitioner was pending when both the mutation proceedings clubbed with each other, the same was also culminated into a fresh civil dispute for cancellation of the sale deed instituted at the behest of respondent no.2 against the petitioner as well as real brother of the petitioner.

6. During pendency of the civil litigation, one application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, has been preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 by way of implicating petitioner alongwith his real brother for imputing certain allegation in respect of cheating and fraud, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was allowed and FIR has been directed to be registered against petitioner and his real brother and the same was registered as Case Crime No.934 of 2011.

7. The F.I.R, has not been challenged by petitioner since there was no information with regard to lodging of F.I.R against the petitioner since he was posted at a very far place from his native village and rendering services for Indian Air Force. In between charge sheet has been preferred by concerned Investigating Officer only in pursuance to Section 420 IPC against two persons i.e, petitioner and his real brother.

8. It is admitted fact of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner never challenged charge sheet but approached for seeking anticipatory bail but the same was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to appear before learned concerned court within a month in the light of judgment reported in Sateyndra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & others reported in [2021 (10) SCC 773] and in pursuance to the same petitioner has been granted bail by the learned court conceerned itself.

9. After having knowledge of the entire facts which culminated into filing charge sheet, since the petitioner was residing at a distance place just for sake of livelihood in shape of rendering services for Indian Air Force, preferred, discharge application by way of seeking discharge from the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet specifically under Section 420 of I.P.C.

10. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa and others 2025 SCC Online SC 31 wherein it has been held that imputation of charges only in pursuance to Section 420 I.P.C where more than one person have been implicated, cannot be sustained since he accomplished in the same charges if committed some offence and the same attracted Section 420 of IPC, there must be some conspiracy or plot for committing the same, in the instant matter both the co-accused have been chargesheeted in respect of Section 420 IPC only which primafacie seems to be illegal one. This aspect has never been given any credence by learned court concerned who dismissed the discharge application vide order dated 18.5.2024 and the same has also not been considered by learned revisional court while passing and dismissing criminal revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2024.

11. The epigenesis of the matter relates to execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner as well as in favour of respondent no.2. It is apparent from the records that being a government servant, rendering his services before the Indian Air Force, the petitioner was altogether aloof from any proceeding which is mandatory to be adopted by a vendee who procured registered sale deed in his favour for any piece of land in shape of mutating his name in the revenue records but the same has has not been done on compelling circumstances but at the same time learned court concerned has put the caution while examining the matter over the discharge preferred at the behest of the petitioner that execution of registered sale deed in favour of petitioner was much prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of respondent no.2, if in any case, the charges has to be implicated, petitioner would have been given lesser footing in respect of the person who executed sale deed twice against different person for same piece of land.

12. In the light of the observation as made above, as well as by way of giving highest regard to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar (Supra), order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.143 of 2024 (Satyawant Govind Rao vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Case no.1711 of 2012 (State vs. Brijesh Govind Rao and others) arising out of Case Crime no.934 of 2011 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna District Kushi Nagar rejecting the discharge application dated 24.12.2023 are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to learned court concerned for deciding discharge application preferred at the behest of petitioner afresh, learned revisional court shall be dependent upon opportunity of hearing extended in favour of the petitioner and the same may be expedited within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

13. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Rakesh

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri Krishana Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the state respondents.

2. The instant petition has been preferred to allow and set aside the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.143 of 2024 (Satyawant Govind Rao vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Case no.1711 of 2012 (State vs. Brijesh Govind Rao and others) arising out of Case Crime no.934 of 2011 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna District Kushi Nagar rejecting the discharge application dated 24.12.2023.

3. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is on legal issue only and as such the process to issue notice to respondent no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

4. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the execution of sale deed was between two real brothers, wherein the petitioner was rendering his services before Indian Air Force and for the same purpose he was posted at West Bengal, that is far away from his native place situated at Kushinagar. State of Uttar Pradesh being ignorant of proceedings although, application for mutation has already been preferred but the same was pending in shape of mutating name of the petitioner over the property which has been purchased through the registered sale deed by the petitioner from his real brother.

5. Due to pendency of mutation, real brother of the petitioner executed a fresh sale deed for the same plot in favour of respondent no.2 and once respondent no.2 proceeded for seeking mutation of his name over the same property wherein the mutation proceeding initiated at the behest of the petitioner was pending when both the mutation proceedings clubbed with each other, the same was also culminated into a fresh civil dispute for cancellation of the sale deed instituted at the behest of respondent no.2 against the petitioner as well as real brother of the petitioner.

6. During pendency of the civil litigation, one application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, has been preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 by way of implicating petitioner alongwith his real brother for imputing certain allegation in respect of cheating and fraud, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was allowed and FIR has been directed to be registered against petitioner and his real brother and the same was registered as Case Crime No.934 of 2011.

7. The F.I.R, has not been challenged by petitioner since there was no information with regard to lodging of F.I.R against the petitioner since he was posted at a very far place from his native village and rendering services for Indian Air Force. In between charge sheet has been preferred by concerned Investigating Officer only in pursuance to Section 420 IPC against two persons i.e, petitioner and his real brother.

8. It is admitted fact of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner never challenged charge sheet but approached for seeking anticipatory bail but the same was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to appear before learned concerned court within a month in the light of judgment reported in Sateyndra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & others reported in [2021 (10) SCC 773] and in pursuance to the same petitioner has been granted bail by the learned court conceerned itself.

9. After having knowledge of the entire facts which culminated into filing charge sheet, since the petitioner was residing at a distance place just for sake of livelihood in shape of rendering services for Indian Air Force, preferred, discharge application by way of seeking discharge from the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet specifically under Section 420 of I.P.C.

10. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa and others 2025 SCC Online SC 31 wherein it has been held that imputation of charges only in pursuance to Section 420 I.P.C where more than one person have been implicated, cannot be sustained since he accomplished in the same charges if committed some offence and the same attracted Section 420 of IPC, there must be some conspiracy or plot for committing the same, in the instant matter both the co-accused have been chargesheeted in respect of Section 420 IPC only which primafacie seems to be illegal one. This aspect has never been given any credence by learned court concerned who dismissed the discharge application vide order dated 18.5.2024 and the same has also not been considered by learned revisional court while passing and dismissing criminal revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2024.

11. The epigenesis of the matter relates to execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner as well as in favour of respondent no.2. It is apparent from the records that being a government servant, rendering his services before the Indian Air Force, the petitioner was altogether aloof from any proceeding which is mandatory to be adopted by a vendee who procured registered sale deed in his favour for any piece of land in shape of mutating his name in the revenue records but the same has has not been done on compelling circumstances but at the same time learned court concerned has put the caution while examining the matter over the discharge preferred at the behest of the petitioner that execution of registered sale deed in favour of petitioner was much prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of respondent no.2, if in any case, the charges has to be implicated, petitioner would have been given lesser footing in respect of the person who executed sale deed twice against different person for same piece of land.

12. In the light of the observation as made above, as well as by way of giving highest regard to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jit Vinayak Arolkar (Supra), order dated 20.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.143 of 2024 (Satyawant Govind Rao vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Case no.1711 of 2012 (State vs. Brijesh Govind Rao and others) arising out of Case Crime no.934 of 2011 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna District Kushi Nagar rejecting the discharge application dated 24.12.2023 are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to learned court concerned for deciding discharge application preferred at the behest of petitioner afresh, learned revisional court shall be dependent upon opportunity of hearing extended in favour of the petitioner and the same may be expedited within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

13. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Rakesh