AJAY SINGHAL AND FOUR OTHERS Vs. BHOPAL SINGH
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-74
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 26,2013

Ajay Singhal And Four Others Appellant
VERSUS
BHOPAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 394 of 2009, Bhopal vs Pramod Kumar and others under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, pending before the court of II Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, as well as the summoning order dated 20.05.2004, passed in aforesaid criminal complaint case.
(2.) Complainant-Respondent filed a criminal complaint case in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against eight accused persons, including the applicants, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC. After recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences, vide order dated 20.05.2004. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved.
(3.) Complainant-Respondent in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. proved the complaint case. It was said in the complaint that complainant s father Shankar was owner in possession of certain land, specified in paragraph 1 of the complaint. Shankar was aged 90 years. Shankar has five sons and a daughter. He lives separately from his sons and daughter. On 21.08.2000, Pramod Kumar (non-applicant) and Rao Arif (non-applicant) came to Shankar s house at 08:00 A.M. They took Shankar with them in Sub Registrar s office, Haridwar on the pretext of providing him old age pension. The applicants were present in the Sub Registrar Office. They got thumb impression of Shankar on some papers under the guise of providing him old age pension. On 10.05.2001, all the accused persons, including the applicants, came to Shankar and informed him that he has executed a Power of Attorney on 21.08.2000, whereupon accused Pramod Kumar executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants on 30.08.2000. Accused persons asked Shankar to deliver the possession of the land in question, to which Shankar declined. Shankar got the papers inspected in the office of Sub Registrar, Haridwar. He came to know that the accused persons, including the applicants, got a Power of Attorney executed in favour of Pramod Kumar on 21.08.2000. On the basis of said Power of Attorney, accused Pramod Kumar executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants. It was also averred in the complaint that Shankar never executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Pramod Kumar (non-applicant). Therefore, Pramod Kumar was not authorized to execute sale deed on behalf of Shankar.;


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