VINOD PRASAD, J. - (1.) A family consisting of four applicants viz Ram Asrey Sharma (A1), his brother Ram Bachan Sharma (A2), his mother Prabhawati Devi (A3) and one Smt. Sitabi @ Sitabia (A4) have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. (in short Code), through instant Criminal Misc Application (in short Application) with the prayer that their prosecution in Case No. 140 of 2009, State v. Ram Ashrey Sharma and others, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Rasda, district Ballia, relating to Crime No. 150 of 2009, pending in the Court of IV Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, be quashed. They have also prayed for stay of Trial Court proceedings against them interregnum.
(2.) PROCEEDING necessary facts, generating instant 482 Application though chequered are simplifiedly narrated hereinafter. To start with a pedigree involving rival contesting sides is sketched below: In the above pedigree Sukrati Devi wife of Hanuman is the informant, Ram Ashrey Sharma S/o Kanhaiya is applicant Al, his brother Ram Bachan Sharma is A2 their mother Smt. Prabha Devi is A3 and Smt. Sitabi @ Sitabia, A4 is the person, whose parentage and marital relationship is the apple of discard between rival sides. According to informant's case she is wife of Kanhaiya Sharma and real sister of A3 but according applicant's she is widow of Laxman @ Lakshan Sharma, alleged S/o Jagdeo, eldest son of Janki. Prosecution version as putforth by the informant is that Informant who is a septuagenarian is widow of Hanuman and her father-in-law had four sons out of whom Jagdeo Sharma, Ram Gati Sharma and Daulat Sharma were issueless. After demise of Jagdeo Sharma his share of property was divided amongst rest of his three brothers Ram Gati, Daulat and Baldeo and their names were mutated in the revenue records. Baldeo Sharma had two sons Hanuman and Kanhaiya. Informant is the W/o of Hanuman. A3 is wife of Kanhaiya where as A1 and A2 are their sons. After demise of Baldeo his property was divided amongst his two sons Hanuman and Kanhaiya. Ram Gati and Daulat, two other brothers of Baldeo Sharma during their life times had already executed wills devolving their property on Hanuman and Kanhaiya and in pursuance to that their share of property also came to Hanuman and Kanhaiya. After the demises of the two brothers mutation was also done accordingly. Informant and her husband had only two female issues Sitara and Pushpa, who were got married and were living in their in-law's house. Finding informant to be a helpless septuagenarian widow, A1 and A2 hankered with dishonest intention of grabbing her entire property threatened her and by coercion on gun point compelled her to sign on blank papers as they intended that she should leave her entire estate for good for all future times. Police was also intimated regarding such criminal intent and attempt by A1 and A2 but in vain. To fulfil their design to lay their hands on the property of the informant, all the applicants in conspiracy and conjunction with each other, executed two shame sale deeds on 3.3.2006 and 27.10.2008. First sale deed was executed favouring Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sugri Devi where as second one was executed in favour of Sushil Kumar Singh. Both the sale deeds were got registered with Dy. Registrar, Registration, Ballia. What is noticeable and is of importance is that in the former sale-deed Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia had described herself as the widow of Kannaiya, whereas in the subsequent sale-deed , she had projected herself as the widow of Laxman @ Lak- shan, albeit there was no male member in the family by the name of Laxman @ Lakshan. This is the conspiracy alleged by the informant to cheat her. According to informant's further allegations all the applicants entered into a criminal conspiracy, fabricated and manufactured two sale-deeds, utilised it as genuine and got them registered with Dy. Registrar, Rasda, district Ballia and consequently all of them had committed offences of cheating, manufacturing of shame documents and other offences. Attempt by the informant to get her FIR registered yielded no result and her that endeavour went in vain. Having no other option left for redressal of her grievance informant approached ACJM, I, Ballia, under section 156 (3) of the Code seeking a direction for registration of her FIR and investigation of crime on 8.12.2008. Learned Magistrate on 3.2.2009, finding cognizable offences being disclosed, directed for registration of FIR and in compliance thereof FIR of Crime No. 150 of 2009,for offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered at P.S. Rasda, district Ballia, on 1.4.2009, vide Annex- ure No.1. During the investigation statement of informant under section 161 Cr. P.C., vide Annexure No. 2 was recorded in which she supported her levelled charges. Concluding investigation I.O. charge-sheeted the applicants on 10.4.2009, vide Annexure 3, on the basis of which ACJM I, took cognizance of the offences on 17.11.2009 and summoned the applicants. Hence present Application by the accused applicants to thwart informant's attempt to prosecute them.
(3.) AT the time of admission of the instant application informant respondent No. 2 appeared in Court through Sri Kameshwar Singh. Advocate and contested the claim by the applicants and objected to the admission. Along with AGA for the State both were granted time to file counter affidavits, which they have done and to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants. Since pleadings were complete, in agreement with both the sides instant 482 Application was heard finally. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, advocate appearing for the applicants contended that prosecution of the applicants on the basis of impugned charge-sheet, Annexure No. 3 is mala fide, vexatious, and deserves to be quashed. According to his submission entire allegations in respect of marital status of Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia as alleged by the informant are false. It was submitted that Jagdeo and Simrakhi had a son Laxman ?Lakshan, who was married to the said woman and from their nuptial tie a girl child Tara Devi was also born. Laxman @ Lakshan died intestate leaving four surviving persons in the family viz his parents, widow and a daughter. After demise of Jagdeo, his share of property devolved on Simrakhi and in turned, after Simrakhi's heavenly abode, name of Sitabi Devi was mutated over the said portion of property. Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia by exercising her legal and de-facto right, executed a sale-deed on 3.3.2006 in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sugri Devi but due to the error instead of referring her as widow of Laxman ? Lakshan, her widowhood was mentioned as widow of Kanhaiya in that sale-deed. Detection of the said mistake was endeavoured to be corrected by Sitabi Devi by moving a Correction Application before S.D.M., Rasda, district Ballia on which Case No. 12 of 07, under sections 229-B, U.P. Z.A. and LR Act, Sitabi v. Ram Ashrey and others, was registered and in that case notices were issued, and ultimately, inspire of service when none of the respondents in that case appeared to contest the correction of record, claim application by Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia was decided ex-parte in her favour on 16.7.2008 vide Annexure 4 and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasda, Ballia ordered correction of record by deleting name of Kanhaiya as husband of Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia and substituting It by the name of Laxman @ Lakshan. Sri Chaturvedi in his endeavour to support above referred submissions relied upon voter's list, issued by Election Commission, Kutumb Register, Vide Annexure No. SA7 to the supplementary affidavit and SA5, extract of Khatauni. According to his contention these documentary proofs without any ambiguity unerringly established marital status of Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia as wife and widow of Laxman @ Lakshan and not of Kanhaiya. It was next argued that there was a partition of ancestral property in a convened conclave, in between the sons of Janki on 24.7.2005, in Which, informant and all other relatives participated and signed the family settlement arrived in that meeting, a copy of which is Annexure SA2 and in that settlement note Sitabi Devi @ Sitabia is referred as wife of laxman @ Lakshan and hence no other contrary view can be taken than as pleaded by the applicants. Attour it was submitted that informant had executed her sale-deed favouring one Suman Devi on 22.9.2005 and on other dates she had sold off other portion of her share of property and while executing those sale- deeds she also sold the portion of property not falling in her share. Aforesaid sale-deed executed by the informant was challenged by Sitabi Devi alias Sitabia along with her daughter Tara Devi as plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1068 of 2008, before Civil Judge (JD) West, Ballia, vide Annexure SA3 and in that suit it is specifically pleaded that Sitabi Devi alias Sitabia is the widow of Laxman @ Lakshan Sharma, son of Jagdeo and Simrakhi. It was additionally submitted that after charge-sheet, crime was further investigated and concluding further investigation, I.O. had opined that entire prosecution of the applicants is malicious, and therefore, had requested the charge-sheet to be cancelled vide annexure SA6. ;