RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-122
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 21,2013

RAVINDER KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U.C. Dhyani, J. - (1.) The applicant, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the proceedings of criminal case no. 11425 of 2008, State v. Rajesh Sharma and others , registered as case crime no. 156 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B of IPC, in police station, Doiwala, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun.
(2.) An FIR was lodged by the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) against three accused persons (not the applicant) on 04.08.2007, at police station, Kotwali Dehradun, which was registered as case crime no. 156 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 505, 506 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons, including the applicant, for the selfsame offences with the inclusion of Section 120B of IPC. It was mentioned in the remarks column of the charge-sheet that offence under Section 120B of IPC was prima facie made out against the present applicant. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial in respect of the offences complained of against them. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant, who was Reader in the court of Tehsildar. Tehsildars Rashid Ali and Wazid Ali were also arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet. The other two accused persons were those with him a dispute of land as against respondent no. 2 was pending in the court of Tehsildar.
(3.) It was alleged by the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) that accused Ramesh Chandra and Shanti Prakash Sharma prepared a forged Power of Attorney and executed a sale deed in favour of accused Rajesh, knowing fully well that accused Ramesh was not the owner of disputed land. As per the FIR, the informant was owner in possession of the disputed land. The informant went to Tehsil for mutation of land in his favour, but his application was dismissed in his default on 25.01.2005. The forged Power of Attorney was prepared on 28.04.2003. Subsequently, the accused persons got their names mutated with the connivance of Tehsil officials. Accused Rajesh Sharma alongwith three unidentified people assaulted the informant on.28.07.2007, at 08:00 P.M. and also threatened him with dire consequences. A report was, therefore, lodged by the informant against Ramesh Chandra, Shanti Prakash Sharma and Rajesh Sharma. Present applicant was not named in the FIR. As has been said earlier, the applicant was a Reader in the court of Tehsildar where a dispute between respondent no. 2 and accused Ramesh Chandra under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was pending. On 25.01.2005, when no one turned up for the applicant, the application was dismissed in default of the applicant. Prior thereto, the application was listed for hearing on 18.12.2004, 20.12.2004, 27.12.2004, 07.01.2005, 13.01.2005. No one turned up for the applicant on these dates either. It was indicated in the order-sheet of 25.01.2005 that the applicant was continuously absent since 18.12.2004 and, therefore, the application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was dismissed for want of prosecution on the said date. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that the Reader had no role to play in commission of alleged crime.;


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