TARA CHAND OBEROI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Tara Chand Oberoi
State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) A first information report was lodged by the petitioner Tara Chandra Oberoi against the respondent No. 2 Raj Kishor Oberoi on 09.09.2000 alleging therein that he lives in Janki Bhawan, Shrawan Nath Nagar and his mother Smt. Janki Devi was also residing along with him. On 15.03.1992, mother of the petitioner died. After her death, respondent No. 2 with one Shyam Lal Sharma connived a forged Will and got it registered in the of Sub -Registrar in Delhi on 16.06.1992 and on the basis of said Will, the respondent No. 2 made an application in the office of Nagar Palika, Haridwar to get his name mutated in House Tax Account No. 201. On 28.11.1997, respondent No. 2 came to the house of the petitioner and claimed the house to be his own on the basis of the said Will and asked the petitioner to vacate the house. The petitioner told him that the Will is a forged one, in as much as, the mother of the petitioner died on 15.03.1992 and the Will is dated 16.06.1992. Upon that, accused persons assaulted the petitioner by fists and : taps. When the petitioner raised an alarm, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences. The first information report for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/470/323 IPC was registered being case crime No. 757 of 2000 in P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar. Police investigated into the matter and submitted a charge -sheet in the court of competent jurisdiction. After the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate, a case was registered as criminal case No. 421 of 2001 and the trial commenced. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter is lingering on for no good reason since 2001 and the petitioner is running from pillar to post to get the result of fraud committed on him. Till date, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The prosecution of the case is moving at a very slow pace. The petitioner, who is about 70 years, is facing great harassment and mental agony. Learned counsel farther contended that expeditious disposal of the case is right of the petitioner as it is integral part of right to live as enshrined in the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By way of this petition/application, the petitioner seeks timely justice so that he may not be denied the fruits of his legal and fundamental rights.
(2.) THE relief, as sought for by the petitioner/applicant, is innocuous and therefore, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent i.e. respondent No. 2, in as much as, everybody, who is party to a Us must be interested in early disposal of the case, be it the petitioner/plaintiff/informant or the respondent/defendant/accused. Hence the issuance of notice to the respondent No. 2 is Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar/ACJM, Haridwar be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year of receipt of certified copy of this Order, dispensed with. Petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is hereby directed in the interest of justice that criminal case No. 1093 of 2012 (old No. 421 of 2001) captioned as State v. Raj Kishore, pending in the Court of 2nd. With the observations as above, the petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.