PARPATI MANKANI Vs. SATTE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Satte Of Uttarakhand
Click here to view full judgement.
HONBLE SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. -
(1.) AT the outset, it is relevant to mention here that the petition titled above was dismissed by this Court on 23.12.2009
and after a considerable delay of as many as 863 days, a
restoration application along with delay condonation
application has been filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel
for the petitioners is ready to argue the matter instantly, so in
the interest of justice, delay condonation application as well as
restoration application is allowed. Petition is restored to its
original number. This Court has rendered hearing to learned
counsel for both the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition, a prayer has been advanced to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 31 of
2004 titled as State Vs. Km. Parpati Mankani and another, wherein accused petitioners have been asked to stand trial for
the offence under Section 417, 420, 506, 406 IPC.
The facts, in brief, are that Parpati Mankani was owner of some land in District Nainital at village Labeshaal,
Ghorakhal, Bhowali. She along her brother Ram Govarmal
Mankani (applicant no. 2) entered into an oral agreement with
Nagendra Agarwal (respondent no. 2) way back in August 1998
for construction of a four-storey building on the said land.
Nagendra Agarwal was indulged in construction work and he
agreed to raise the said construction, over the land of
petitioners. He developed the site of admeasuring 2400 sq. ft.
and raised construction over the land of admeasuring 8789 sq.
ft. The applicants made payment of Rs. 50,47,400/- including
expenses for construction material and labour work. As per the
allegation, Rs. 10,89,150/- was not paid by the petitioners to
respondent no. 2, which he invested in purchasing sundry
construction material and also spent for payment of several
labourers. Account of all affairs was tendered by respondent
no. 2 to the petitioners on 18.11.1999, who also occupied the
constructed building. Repeated demands were raised by
respondent no. 2 to make payment but in vain. Rather,
petitioners extended various threats to Nagendra Agarwal,
inter alia to kill him, if demand is raised thenceforth.
(3.) MR . Agarwal when felt that amount has been grabbed by the petitioners, he lodged an FIR on 23.12.2000
(Annexure no. 4 to the petition) pertaining to crime no. 8 of
2000. Since the matter was of Hill area, the investigation was done by Patwari / Lekhpal (in the Hill areas revenue officials of
lower strata are entrusted with police powers) who submitted
the final report on 11.04.2001.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.