Rajendra Prasad Tiwari v. State and others) on
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174861 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3655 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Chand Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. This criminal misc. writ petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and for quashing the impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi - Gyanpur in Complaint Case No. 254 of 2016 (Rajendra Prasad Tiwari v. State and others) on 22.07.2017 and order dated 30.08.2017 passed by learned court of Session Judge, Bhadohi - Gyanpur in Revision No. 73 of 2017 (Rajendra Prasad Tiwari v. State and others).
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case sale deed was got executed by the respondents in the year 1967 and later on after lapse of several years an application for mutation was moved before the Consolidation Authority which was accepted and order was passed regarding which he moved an objection before the Authority concerned which is still pending. It is further submitted that in this regard an F.I.R was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents on the basis of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C in which after investigation the final report was filed by the police. In pursuance to which notice was given to the informant who filed protest before the learned Court and it was treated as complaint. The statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded under sections 200/202 Cr.P.C and the order was passed by learned A.C.J.M II, Bhadohi on 22.7.2017 while rejecting the complaint against which criminal revision was filed before the learned court of Session which was also dismissed by order dated 30.8.2017 against which the present petition has been preferred before this Court. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court, while passing the order in question, did not consider the material on record and law, therefore, it cannot be said to be lawful. It is also submitted that the sale deed was got executed in the year 1967 and after lapse of long period an application for mutation was moved before the Consolidation Authority on the basis of which the exparte order for mutation was obtained. When this fact came into knowledge of the petitioner, an objection was filed before the authority concerned on the basis of which exparte order was recalled and the objection is still pending for final disposal. The sale deed was said to be executed in the year 1967 but it was held up by the respondents for a long time which shows that it was not got executed fairly but with the intention of cheating to the petitioner. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while passing the order on complaint. Likewise, the learned revisional Court did also not consider the aforesaid fact but dismissed the revision which cannot be said to be in conformity with law, therefore, requested to set aside the orders and allow the present petition. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and contended that in this case no any offence was committed by the respondent in getting the sale deed executed in the year 1967 and making delay in moving an application for mutation before the Authority Concerned after long gap cannot be said to constitute an offence. There is no any other allegation against the respondents that they got the sale deed executed by placing the imposter or in connivance with the Registration Authority. In this way, no offence of cheating or forgery can be said to be made out. It is also contended that since the document was duly registered before the Registration Authority, therefore, it cannot be said to be unlawful but presumption arises under the act regarding genuineness of the registered document. During course of investigation by the police, no any material constituting an offence was found, as a result final report was submitted by the police. Even the protest application, which was moved before the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was also considered by the learned court and after recording the statement of the complainant/informant as well as the witness under sections 200/202 Cr.P.C it was concluded that no such allegation was made by the authority to constitute an offence, therefore, the complaint was rejected and the learned revisional court also considered all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as a result the revision was also dismissed. In this way there is no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by both the courts below but this petition is devoid of merit and liable to set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A and perusal of the orders passed by the learned Court below, it appears that in this case there is no any such allegation against the respondents that the sale deed is said to be executed with the help of imposter or in connivance with the registration authority except the allegation that it was held up by the respondents for long time and then an application for mutation was moved before the consolidation authority and an exparte mutation order was obtained which was recalled on the objection moved by the petitioner which is still pending. It shows that prima facie no any offence is made out against the respondents and all these facts and circumstances were taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate while passing the order and also by the learned revisional court while deciding the revision. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the orders in question. As a result this petition is liable to be dismissed as having no force. This writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.8.2023 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad