VAKEEL AHMED & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-203
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 23,2013

VAKEEL AHMED And OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The applicants, by means of this petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 08.04.2008, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 202 of 2008, captioned as State v. Vakeel and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar.
(2.) A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 2 against four accused persons including the applicants on 27.07.2004, in PS Laksar, as regards offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Accused no. 1 Khursheed (seller) is not the applicant in the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. Cognizance on the same was taken by the learned Magistrate and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. Respondent no. 2 made an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar with the allegation that, on 12.07.1988, one Khursheed Ahmad (non-applicant) sold his share in khasra no. 104 area about 10 biswa to one Alla Rakha and no sale-deed was executed. However a stamp was written of the said sale for a consideration of Rs. 5200/-. Thereafter, Alla Rakha died and his son respondent no. 2 was in possession along with his brother, mother and co-tenure holder Jameel Hasan. It came to the knowledge of respondent no. 2 that Khursheed Ahmad executed a registered sale-deed of said khasra number. in favour of applicant no. 1 Vakeel Ahmad on 01.05.2006 pertaining to 0.1163 hectare. The accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to grab his property.
(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 despite having granted opportunity for the same.;


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