Ashwani Kumar .… v. Presence

revision was rejected affirming the order dated

20.04.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant before the trial court stating therein that his father was the owner of property No.11 Moti Bazar New No.25/27/3 Moti Bazar; who has executed a power of attorney dated 18.05.2001 in favour of respondent No.2-Dharmender Chhabra and Vijay Kumar, which was duly registered on 02.07.2001 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dehradun; respondent No.2 on 26.09.2002, in the garb of the power of attorney, executed a sale deed in favour of his wife i.e. respondent No.3 by declaring himself as sole power of attorney holder by erasing the name of Vijay Kumar; when this facts came into the knowledge of applicant, he asked them to vacate the disputed property and they threatened the applicant with life; thereafter, he moved a representation before the S.S.P. Dehradun on

22.09.2014 disclosing these facts; when these facts came to the knowledge of his father, he initiated the proceeding for cancellation of the said power of attorney dated 18.05.2001, which was duly cancelled on 25.09.2014 in the office of competent authority. The applicant on the very same day gave the information about the cancellation of power of attorney through his advocate by post, which was duly received by the respondent on 01.10.2014. In spite of the information, respondent No.2 again executed a sale deed in his wife’s favour on 13.03.2015 for the property under dispute. Thereafter, the applicant on 06.04.2015 moved an application before the police and asking them to take action against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and lodge FIR, but, no action has been taken by the 3 police.

4. When nothing was done by the police, the applicant move an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Miscellaneous Case No.454 of 2015 Ashawani Kumar Sonker Vs. Dharmendra Chhabra and Others, which was dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 on the ground that the matter is civil in nature. Thereafter, the applicant filed a revision by challenging the judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 before the Court of learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision Case No.120 of 2015 Ashwani Kumar Sonker Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, which was also dismissed on 25.10.2017 by affirming the judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 passed by learned CJM on the very same ground. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging both the impugned judgments and orders.

5. Applicant in-person submits that the learned Court below has dismissed the application moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the report submitted by the police. Since it contained prima-facie material to direct for registration of FIR and investigation, the dismissal of application is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the learned Court below before passing the order has not recorded the statement under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and only on this ground, the order passed is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. 4

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel argued that it is case based upon concurrent findings of facts.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits on the basis of counter affidavit that the power of attorney was executed by the father of the applicant on his own free will in the name of deponent with the rights as referred in the said power of attorney including right to sell and the name of one-Vijay Kumar was not erased from the power of attorney by the deponent. He further submits that the power of attorney and the name of Vijay Kumar, if any, is apparently deleted by the applicant’s father himself even prior to the registration of the same. He also submits that the both the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court has rightly passed their judgments and orders, there is no requirement of recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

8. Applicant on the basis of its rejoinder affidavit has submitted that while executing the power of attorney the name of Vijay Kumar was added on page No.2 and for the said correction, the signature of his father was taken on page No.2. He also submits that the lower Courts did not take serious cognizance of the matter, in which the forgery, fraud, deceit and criminal conspiracy with his father (his father was passed away on 07.01.2021), who was an 82 years old man a Scheduled Caste person, which fact is ignored by the lower Courts and dismissed his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and revision for being a Civil Case. 5

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire material available on record. Learned trial court after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, passed the order of rejection of the application moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned Revisional court by way of elaborate judgment and order dated

25.10.2017 has also did not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed by the learned trial court. This Court has also gone through the complaint moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the complaint are of civil nature, for which, the applicant is free to avail remedies available under the civil law. Applicant could not point out any other illegality in the judgments and orders passed by the courts below. The reasoning given by the trial court is perfect and sound and there is hardly any scope to interfere in the aforesaid orders.

10. As a result, the application moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.06.2025