St at e v. Deo Raj Tiwari and ot hers under sect ions

Mr. Pawan Mishra, lear ned counsel for t he applicant s.

2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e.

3. Applicant s have t he pr esent crim inal m iscellaneous applicat ion seeking t he following reliefs: - “ I t is, t herefore, m ost respect fully prayed t hat t his Hon'ble Court m ay kindly be pleased t o allow t his applicat ion and quash t he charge sheet dt . 18.03.2004 ( Annexure No.5 t o t he accom panying affidavit ) , cognizance order dt . 15.5.2004 ( Annexure No.6 t o t he accom panying affidavit ) , passed by Special Judicial Magist rat e, 1st , Dehradun and t he proceeding of crim inal case no. 4640 of 2013 ( old no.481 of 2004) St at e Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and ot hers under sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120( B) I .P.C., pending in t he Court of 3rd Addit ional Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun; and/ or pass any ot her and furt her orders, which t his Hon'ble Court m ay deem fit and proper in t he present circum st ances of t he case. I t is, furt her prayed t hat t his Hon'ble Court m ay kindly be pleased t o st ay t he furt her proceeding of crim inal case no.4640 of 2013 ( old no.481 of 2004) St at e Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and ot hers under sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120( B) I .P.C., pending in t he Court of 3rd Addit ional Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun, during pendency of t he crim inal m isc. applicat ion before t his Hon'ble Court , so t hat t he j ust ice be done wit h t he applicant s.” t hat

4. An FI R was lodged by respondent no. t he 2, wherein, he has alleged applicant no. 1 by execut ing a forged power of at t orney of respondent no. 2 have execut ed a sale deed dat ed 25.07.2001 in favour of applicant no. 2, which is regist ered in t he office of Sub- Regist rar, Dehradun in Book no. 1, Volum e 963 at page 97 at serial num ber 4036. I t is furt her alleged in t he FI R t hat applicant nos. 1 and 2 have perform ed t his act of forgery in connivance wit h Devraj Tiwari, Nat hiram Maurya and Anil Ghai.

5. Aft er invest igat ion, charge- sheet was filed under Sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B I PC.

6. Cont ent ion of learned counsel for t he applicant s is t hat respondent no. 2 have subsequent ly filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 96 of 2004 before t he Court of Civil Judge ( Jr. Div.) , Dehradun against t he applicant s as well as ot her co- accused wit h t he following prayers: - t he plaint iff and against “ ( A) A decree m ay very kindly be passed in t he favour of defendant s for cancellat ion of sale deed dat ed 25- 07- 2001 and which is said t o be regist ered in t he office of Sub Regist rar, Dehradun, in book no. 1, volum e 963, at page 97, at 's1.no. 4036 t he regist ered on 25- 07- 2001 and subsequent and consequent sale deed dat ed 28t h Sept em ber 2001 execut ed in favour of t he defendant no. 7 which is regist ered in t he office of Sub Regist rar, Dehradun, in book no. 1, volum e 963, page 119, at sl.no. 5269 and regist ered on 28- 09- 2001 and t he said sale deeds be adj udged fabricat ed inoperat ive and sham piece of docum ent s and not binding upon t he plaint iff. and int im at ion t hereof m ay kindly be sent t o t he Sub Regist rar, Dehradun. illegal, t o be ( B) A decree inj unct ion be for perm anent passed in favour of t he plaint iff & against t he t heir defendant s rest raining servant s, agent s, em ployees, represent at ives, assigns et c. from in any way encroaching upon t he propert y in suit and raising any const ruct ion t hereon and also from t ransferring or creat ing any t hird part y right s over t he propert y in suit . t he defendant s, ( C) Full cost of t he suit be passed in favour of t he plaint iff and against t he defendant .”

7. He has furt her t hat t heir writ t en st at em ent , applicant s, have specifically denied t he allegat ions m ade in t he plaint and furt her filed an subm it t ed applicat ion, wherein, t hey have subm it t ed t hat signat ure of respondent no. 2 in t he alleged power of at t orney as well as in t he civil suit be sent t o hand- writ ing expert . Aft er m oving of t he plaint iff did not pursue t he suit and t he said suit was dism issed for want of prosecut ion on 31.10.2011. t his applicat ion, t his Court

8. Learned counsel for t he applicant s have produced before t he quest ionnaire, which are t aken on record. Perusal of t he quest ionnaire reveals t hat aft er dism issal of t he suit for want of prosecut ion on 31.10.2011, no rest orat ion applicat ion has been filed and t he suit st ood dism issed. He has t hus cont ended t hat t he allegat ions, as alleged in t he FI R, are purely of civil nat ure and which could have been det erm ined aft er considering docum ent ary evidence.

9. Since, t he respondent no. 2, who have filed a suit for cancellat ion of t he alleged sale deed, have him self chosen not t o pursue t he suit filed by him , t herefore, in view of t he fact t hat FI R was based on sim ilar set of fact s as alleged in t he civil suit and since t he civil suit was dism issed t he year 2011 and have not been rest ored by respondent no. 2 and have t hus at t ained finalit y; t he ent ire version of t he FI R filed by respondent no. 2 has becom e chances of t he convict ion becom e oblique and no useful purpose would be served by allow ing t he proceedings t o cont inue. I t is not hing, but , t he m isuse of t he process of law. The Court cannot be used for any t he purpose of oblique purpose or t wist ing t he arm t o set t le t heir own civil im probable. Thus, t he disput e. Moreover, t he respondent no. 2- com plainant has not com e t o cont est t he present pet it ion despit e service. Accordingly, t he present pet it ion has gone uncont est ed on his behalf. forward charge- sheet , Judicial Magist rat e,

10. I n view of t he above subm ission, t his Court has no hesit at ion in quashing t he im pugned sum m oning/ cognizance order dat ed 15.05.2004 passed by Special 1st , Dehradun and also t he ent ire proceedings of Crim inal Case No. 4640 of 2013 ( old no.481 of 2004) St at e Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and ot hers under sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120( B) I .P.C., pending in t he Court of 3rd Addit ional Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun. t his

11. Accordingly, crim inal m iscellaneous applicat ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. I m pugned charge- sheet , sum m oning/ cognizance order dat ed 15.05.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magist rat e, 1st , Dehradun as well as t he ent ire proceedings of Crim inal Case No. 4640 of 2013 ( old no.481 of 2004) St at e Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and ot hers under sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120( B) t he Court of 3rd I .P.C., pending Addit ional Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. UJJWAL UPADHA YAY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=9393551a90e6503cb676399c964af2fe1d0 b9d6096e7e3dd604ed5500c4c6251, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=738FE7CE353E3BD86B04161EACEDD A1338FDDE923658FFC1C18416E79CCA8145, cn=UJJWAL UPADHAYAY Uj j wal ( A l o k M a h r a J.)

08.04.2025