MEHANDI HASAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By means of this petition, a prayer has been advanced to set aside order dated 16.06.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / FTC I, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar whereby order dated 07.03.2011 passed by Civil Judge (SD) / Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur was affirmed.
(2.) At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that when application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Magistrate and appeal whereof preferred under Section 341 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed, then no revision lies in the Court but in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalit Mohan Vs. Binoyendra Nath, 1982 CrLJ 625, the High Court is at liberty to examine the matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code, so this revision is converted into a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) This Court has rendered hearing to learned counsel for the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that three deeds of 'agreement to sell' executed on dated 07.03.1979, 23.07.1979 and 20.10.1983 were allegedly forged by Sanjayveer Singh Sisodia (respondent no. 2).
These agreements to sell were questioned in the litigation pending under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act initiated by Ram Pal Singh against Sudha Sisodia. When Sudha Sisodia was examined in revenue court on 17.08.2002, she denied existence of these deeds.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.