Kiran Pant another v. State as well as the judgment and order dated

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 19.07.2019 with the allegations that on

20.08.2013 he has purchased some land in Village Digra, Patti Talla Katyur from the applicant amounting to Rs.12,24,00/-. Respondent no.2 paid the purchased price of the said land to the applicant at the time of registry of the sale deed. On 20.07.2016, Shri sodhan 1 Singh, Panel Advocate, Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Bageshwar sent a registered notice to the respondent no.2, according to which, he was informed that respondent no.2 has purchased 0.080 hectares of land, out of 5 Nali land of Kha.Kha 2, Basrah No.2 of Village Digra through sale deed from Smt. Kiran Pant, wife of late Suresh Chandra. On the said land, a loan was taken by Diwan Ram from Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Bageshwar on 15.06.2011 of Rs.13,50,000/- for diary purpose. Thereafter, the Bank found that the said land was purchased by respondent no.2 through sale deed number 324 in page no.81 to 98 of book no.1 volume 12 dated 20.08.2013, due to which, there has been encroachment of the rights of Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Branch Bageshwar. Then the respondent no.2 has been directed to get the sale deed of the said purchased land done in favour of the Bank, otherwise, Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Branch Bageshwar will initiate proceedings against respondent no.2. It is further alleged in the FIR that respondent no.2 while buying the aforesaid land, got the sale deed verified and as per the area Patwari’s report dated 17.08.2013, the said land was clean and available for sale. In such a situation, the role of Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Branch Bageshwar also seems suspicious. The respondent no.2 was not given any information by the seller-applicant about the mortgage of the aforesaid land against any loan. The applicant has fraudulently sold the above land by taking advantage of the absence of entry of proper mortgage in Uttarakhand Gramin Bank in the title papers. After that, respondent no.2 contacted the applicant and she assured the respondent no.2 that she will pay the remaining loan of the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Branch Bageshwar, 2 but till date, the bank loan has not been paid by her, due to which, the bank is also harassing the respondent no.2 by pressurizing him to take legal action against him. In the FIR, it is also alleged that respondent no.2 came to know that applicant in collusion with Diwan Ram prepared a sale deed of the said land by late Suresh Chandra Pant and made Indra Lal guarantor and the same land was fraudently sold by the applicant to the respondent no.2.

3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicant on

08.12.2019. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar took cognizance on charge-sheet and summoned the applicant on 12.08.2020 in Criminal Case No.240 of 2020, State vs. Kiran Pant & another. Thereafter, on 02.08.2021, an application was filed on behalf of the applicant and other co-accused-Diwan Ram under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar vide order dated

10.11.2021 dismissed the said application. Challenging the order dated 10.11.2021, applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.06 of 2021, Kiran Pant & another vs. State, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bageshwar and the said revision was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03.06.2022. Thus, against the aforesaid judgment and orders, applicant is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR is counter blast to the FIR lodged by applicant’s son in the matter of suicide of Late Suresh Pant. The present FIR is based upon a sale deed dated

20.08.2013 executed by the applicant and according to the FIR, mutuation was also done in favour of informant, 3 which is purely a civil dispute. She further submits that the FIR is lodged on 19.07.2019 with a delay of six years from executing the sale deed dated 20.08.2013.

5. State has filed its counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that in the FIR there is specific allegation against the applicant that applicant executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no.2 on

20.08.2013 without disclosing this fact that the aforesaid land was already mortgaged with Utttarakhand Gramin Bank, therefore, applicant committed fraud upon respondent no.2 by cheating him. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., namely, Inder Lal (respondent no.2), Mr. Ajay Kumar Joshi, Vachaspati (the then Branch Manager who sanctioned the loan), Madan Lal Agrawal, Ramesh Chandra (Patwari) and other witnesses, learned trial court took cognizance against the applicant.

6. I have gone through the reasoning assigned by learned Magistrate as well as learned revisional court while passing the impugned orders. The revisional court has categorically stated in its order that at the time of execution of sale deed dated 20.08.2013, respondent no.2 was not aware that the aforesaid land has already mortgaged to Uttarakhand Gramin Bank by applicant. It is further stated that co-accused Diwan Ram has taken loan from the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank and the applicant had mortgaged the said land to the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank before selling the same land to the respondent no.2.

7. In this view of the matter, I find no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. 4 There are concurrent findings of fact against the applicant and there is no ground for interference in this matter. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.06.2025 5