R.RAGHAVAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-380
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 31,2010

R.RAGHAVAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Goyal for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey for the respondent No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent No.1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case no. 429 of 2007 Momin Khan V. Mustar and others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mawana, District Meerut. It appears that the applicant No.2 Sri Lakshmi Ammal Eductional Trust, Chennai, Tamil Nadu is a public trust constituted with the object of running educational institutions though-out the country. The applicant No. 1 Prof. R. Raghavan is the authorised person to act for and on behalf of the trust. It is alleged that the aforesaid trust decided to establish an engineering college at Mawana, Meerut and purchased certain lands including the land disclosed in para one of the complaint. The respondent No.2, Momin Khan, filed a complaint in the Court of the concerned Magistrate on the ground that his nephew, namely, Muster executed a sale deed in favour of the trust by impersonating himself as Momin Khan. There is no dispute so far as genuinness of other sellers is concerned. It is also stated in the complaint that the witnesses of the sale deed namely Vishwanathan and Lalit Mohan Sharma also colluded with the main accused Muster and identified the sellers.
(3.) THERE is no allegation against the trust as well as the applicant No.1 in the entire complaint. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are bonafide purchasers. The applicant No.1 lives in New Delhi. He was made to understand that the sellers were genuine persons so he got the sale deed executed and paid the sale consideration. He was not aware that Momin Khan had been impersonated by Muster Khan. Therefore, no criminal liability can be levelled against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that this conclusion is liable to be inferred from the fact that the applicant No.1 was a stranger to the place where the land situates.;


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