Decided on July 13,2012

Parpati Mankani Appellant
Satte Of Uttarakhand Respondents


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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.