KAVITA KOTHARI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Kavita Kothari And Another
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No.410 of 2009 titled as Hari Chand Sharma & another vs. Smt. Kavita Kothari and others under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.
(2.) Respondents no.2 & 3 (i.e. Hari Chand Sharma and Smt. Urmila Devi respectively) filed a criminal complaint case against 5 accused persons, including the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 451, 380, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Respondent no.2/complainant entered into the witness-box under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. He supported the contents of his complaint. Vijay Kumar Sharma CW1, Sheela Devi CW2 and Raj Kumar CW3 were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. After considering the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., alongwith documentary evidence, applicants and one Sugreev Singh were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 I.P.C., vide order dated 30.03.2010. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by two of the accused persons, namely, Kavita Kothari and Dinesh Kothari.
The third accused Sugreev Singh is not the applicant before this Court.
(3.) As per the allegations, accused Sugreev Singh gave his power of attorney to Hari Chand Sharma in the year 1997 and Hari Chand Sharma executed a sale deed in relation to a part of his land in favour of his wife (i.e. Smt. Urmila Devi). The said sale deed was executed in the year 2006. Accused Sugreev Singh executed registered sale deeds in favour of Kavita Kothari and Dinesh Kothari on 24.01.2007 and 25.01.2007. Thus, according to learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3, accused Sugreev Singh committed cheating and forgery in respect of his land. First of all, he gave power of attorney to respondent no.2, who on the strength of such power of attorney given by Sugreev Singh, executed the sale deed in favour of his wife on 28.12.2006. Sugreev Singh thereafter himself executed two registered sale deeds in favour of the present applicants on 24.01.2007 and 25.01.2007. According to learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3, accused Sugreev Singh knew it fully well that his power of attorney holder respondent no.2 has already transferred a part of his land in favour of his wife and inspite of the same, Sugreev Singh executed registered sale deeds in favour of the present applicants. She also contended that the present applicants were also having the knowledge of the fact that Sugreev Singh, on the strength of his power of attorney, permitted respondent no.2 to transfer the same land in favour of respondent no.3. The applicants knew it fully well that the same land which was transferred to respondent no.3, is being sold to them by way of registered sale deeds by accused Sugreev Singh again.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.