Raja Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

Magistrate First, Dehradun. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and Supplementary affidavit filed on their behalf. The supplementary affidavit filed today with the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1462 of 2010 is allowed to be taken on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that a first information report (copy Annexure –2 to the petition) was got lodged by respondent No. 2 Harish Sehgal on 02.12.1998, against the petitioner Raja Singh and one Uma Gupta, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of I.P.C., which was registered as Crime No. 233 of 1998. In the first information report it is alleged by the complainant / respondent No. 2 Harish Sehgal that property in question of Khasra No. 97, 98 and 103 is owned by him and other co-sharers, which is recorded in their names in the revenue record. Accused / petitioner Raja Singh transferred the land in question of said plot, as a Trustee of Guru Ram Das Educational Trust, on 16.07.1998. The allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner sold the property through sale deed dated 16th of July 1998 (copy Annexure –1 to the petition) knowingly that he is not the owner. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet only against the petitioner No. 1 Raja Singh, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 47 of 2001, and he appears to have been summoned to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. 3 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. Attention of this Court is drawn to the plaint of Suit No. 869 of 1998, instituted by the complainant / respondent No. 2 and his brothers, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun (copy of which is Annexure –3 to the petition), in which cancellation of sale deed has been prayed by the complainant. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the civil court is seized with the matter, and it is yet to be decided whether the disputed sale deed executed by the petitioner is liable to be cancelled or not, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be maintained. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to the cases of Trilok Singh and others Vs. Satya deo Tripathi, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 850, and Ram Biraji Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 669, in support of the above contention. The case of Trilok Singh and others (supra) was a case of purchase of a truck and the dispute related payment of money on the basis of the hire-purchase agreement. In circumstance, the Apex court observed that since the dispute was entirely of civil nature, the criminal complaint case filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur, was not maintainable. In the case of Ram Biraji Devi (supra) the dispute related to specific performance of contract between the complainant and the accused in respect of land agreed to be sold, and in that circumstance also, the Apex court found that no criminal proceedings 4 are maintainable. But, the present case, complainant has come up with a case that the land owned by him and recorded in his name, has been sold by the petitioner knowingly. This allegation attracts not only the civil liability but also the criminal liability. The police, after investigation has submitted charge sheet, against the petitioner. With the counter affidavit copies of the statement of Lekhpal and that of concerned Sub Registrar have been filed, as recorded by Investigating Officer, to show that the impugned charge sheet was rightly filed by the police. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that there are disputed questions of fact relating as to whether in execution of disputed sale deed the petitioner was bonafide or not, which can be seen only by the trial court. It is not desirable on the part of this Court to give any final opinion as to whether the plea raised relating to factual aspects by the petitioner, which are disputed by the respondent No. 2 / complainant are correct or not, on the basis of the incomplete material before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to a compromise dated 02.03.2009, entered into between the respondent No. 2 / complainant and the accused Lata Gupta (whose name figured in the FIR, but against whom no charge sheet was filed), copy of which is annexed as S–1 to the supplementary affidavit filed with Application No. 1462 of 2010, and also to the order dated 05.03.2009, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial 5 Magistrate III, Dehradun, whereby he has acquitted complainant Harish Sehgal, against whom Lata Gupta appears to have filed a criminal case. On its basis it is contended that Lata Gupta was also Trustee of Guru Ram Das Educational Trust, and as such after compromise, the present proceedings against petitioner are liable to be quashed. Since, Lata Gupta was not the executant with the petitioner in executing the disputed sale deed, prime facie, at this stage it is difficult for this Court to say whether on the basis of the above mentioned compromise, it reflects on the conduct of the petitioner or not. This Court would like to leave this to be examined by the trial court, after examining the witnesses. 6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Raja Singh, if not on bail, surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 22, 2010. H. Negi