Sanjay Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the private respondent. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 762 of 2012 Sanjay Kumar and others. (cid:133)(cid:133).Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....(cid:133). Respondents. 2 Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the private respondent. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 770 of 2012 Vinod Kumar Awasthi. (cid:133)(cid:133).Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....(cid:133). Respondents. Present: Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 772 of 2012 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal. (cid:133)(cid:133).Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....(cid:133). Respondents. Present: Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 773 of 2012 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal. (cid:133)(cid:133).Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....(cid:133). Respondents. Present: Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 774 of 2012 Vinod Kumar Awasthi. (cid:133)(cid:133).Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ....(cid:133). Respondents. Present: Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. 3 Hon(cid:146)ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. All the above titled petitions have been filed with a common object to quash the two First Information Reports pertaining to case crime no. 191 and 192 of 2012 both for the offence under Sections 405, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 473 read with Section 120-B IPC police station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar lodged by respondent Ved Prakash Goel, as power of attorney of Mrs. Anju Goel and Mrs. Shashi Goel. On dated

09.08.2012, Ved Prakash Goel could lodge the FIRs evoking the powers of Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by way of filing an application on 13.07.2012. The main accused named in the FIRs are Mohan Kumar Mittal and Dr. Vishnu Sahai, who executed Sale Deeds on dated 30.04.2009 at Sub Registrar Office, Kichha for plots no. A337, A336 respectively. These small pieces of land were purchased by Mrs. Anju Goel and Mrs. Shashi Goel respectively, who hail from Kichha. It is also pertinent to mention here that vendors, at some point of time, also hailed from Kichha but with the passage of time, they shifted to Bareilly and Delhi respectively.

2. A dispute arose when Bank Officers namely Vinod Kumar Awasthi, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow and Sanjeev Kumar Mittal, a Resolution Agent engaged to assist the Bank, approached at the site of plots and pasted a notice to recover the huge loan amount from the persons, who were found in occupation of the said plots. Needless to say that after purchasing the said plots, Mrs. Anju Goel and Mrs. Shashi Goel erected their houses on the same and were found dwelling with their families at the time when Bank Officers arrived. It was appalling for them to find Bank Officers asking them for recovery of the loan money from plots, so they executed their 4 power of attorney in favour of Ved Prakash Goel to lodge a report, as both were housewives.

3. There is yet another aspect of the dispute, there are some other persons namely Shatrughan, Sanjay Kumar and Ashu Mittal, all residents of Kichha, who were associating with vendors to ensure the purchasers that both the pieces of land were without any encumbrance and titles of the same are clean and good enough. This way, their names were also found place in the FIRs, so lodged.

4. All these persons named in the FIR rushed to this Court to get the arrest stay by way of filing these writ petitions and this Court granted them interim stay. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Ved Prakash Goel annexing therewith a Handwriting Expert(cid:146)s Report dated 08.09.2012.

5. A significant aspect of this dispute is that allegedly two agreements to sell were drafted on dated 08.04.2009 in respect of each plot between purchaser and seller respectively and in these agreements, it was disclosed that each of these plots bear encumbrance to State Bank of India, for a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- each. This way, one piece of land worth Rs. 15,00,000/- was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- while another piece of land worth Rs. 14,91,000/- was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 4,91,000/- because each plot of land was mortgaged with State Bank of India under encumbrance for Rs. 10,00,000/-.

6. It was further agreed between the parties that if sellers will not be able to redeem the encumbrance from the Bank, then purchasers themselves will get it redeemed after making payments to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- (in both cases) 5 to the Bank, so in this perspective Sale Deeds were executed on

30.04.2009.

7. The entire pivot of the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent is that these agreements to sell dated

08.04.2009 were never executed and the signatures of Mrs. Anju Goel and Mrs. Shashi Goel upon these agreements to sell are quite forged and frivolous. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a report of Private Handwriting Expert, who opined that signatures of these two ladies on the sale deeds are different from those mentioned on agreements to sell.

8. This Court, having scrutinized the signatures of these two ladies on agreements to sell as well as on the sale deeds scrupulously, is of the considered view that these signatures perfectly resemble to each other. Just on the basis of Private Handwriting Expert(cid:146)s report, the aforesaid signatures cannot be denied because there is every possibility to procure such report from Private Handwriting Expert by a person in his favour, who is the paymaster of such expert. Needless to say that petitioners i.e. vendors may also procure another report of different private Handwriting Expert in their favour which ratifies the resemblance of signatures between the admitted signatures on the sale deeds and the disputed signatures on agreements to sell. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have also got the report of another Private Expert in their favour provided an opportunity is rendered to file the same with rejoinder affidavit. The Bank Officers were under the obligation on their official duties, it was incumbent upon them to recover the money borrowed from the Bank, so by no stretch of imagination, they can be held guilty and framing of their names in the FIRs is totally baseless. 6

9. The contention of the learned counsel that these agreements to sell were not executed at the relevant time is not acceptable and the grounds put forth by him that earnest money was not given in the said agreement or time period for execution of the sale deed was not disclosed or these housewives were not supposed to go to Bareilly for executing the agreements to sell are also not acceptable and totally baseless, so all these petitions are allowed. Impugned FIRs of case crime nos. 191 and 192 of 2012 under Sections 405, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 473 read with Section 120-B IPC police station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed with hook, line and sinker. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 11.10.2012 SKS