- (1.) B. P. Singh, J. All these four petitions relate to Criminal Case No. 292 of 1989 State v. Nripendra Singh & Ors. , under Sections 406/420/477/120-B, I. P. C. , P. S. Jariya, district Hamirpur and are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) LATE Maharaja Mahipal Singh Judev was the owner of Sarila Estate in district Hamirpur. LATE Maharaja had five sons i. e. Sri Devendra Singh, Sri Jayendra Singh, Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Narendra Singh and Sri Nripendra Singh. Smt. Kumud Rani is the wife of Sri Nripendra Singh. Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani are the applicants in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1166 of 1992 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and Criminal Misc. Transfer Appli cation No. 622-B of 1992. Nripendra Singh is the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 1434 of 1991 and Criminal Revision No. 45 of 1992. An FIR was lodged by Raja Narendra Singh who is the eldest son of Maharaja Mahipal Singh Judev on 29-12-1988 against Nripendra Singh and his wife Smt. Kumud Rani. It was alleged by Raja Narendra singh that his father Mahipal Singh died on 13-1-1983 and in August 1984 a family settlement had taken place between him and his brothers Nripendra Singh and Devendra Singh and Rani Veena Kumari the widow of his brother Virendra Singh. The daughters of Maharaja Mahipal Singh, Rani Sushil Kumari, Sarain Kumari and Kunwar Rani Rajendra Kumari were also parties to the said settlement. The above settlement was reduced to writing and in the document the execu tants had agreed about their respective shares in the property of late Maharaja Mahipal Singh. The written settlement in question was a value security because the executants had acknowledged each others separate shares in the same. The document in question was signed by all the executants. After the execution of the above deed of family settlement, affidavits were exchanged between the executants.
(3.) THE deed of the family settlement was left with Raja Narendra Singh as he was the eldest and senior most member of the family. It was also agreed that the deed in question could be availed of by any one of the execu tants for showing the same to the officers or courts if and when required in any proceedings. Smt. Kumud Rani took the deed of settlement from Raja Narendra Singh upon the plea that she was to show the same to the officers where mutation proceedings were pending relating to the share which fell to the lot of Raja Nripendra Singh. THEse proceedings were completing in March 1988 in the court of Naib-Tahsildar Jalalpur Bathi. THEreafter on 18th April, 1988 Smt. Kumud Rani received back the deed of settlement from the Naib-Tansildar, Jampur-Bathi and has kept the same with her since then. When Raja Narendra Singh applied for the mutation of the property in his name, objection was filed by Raja Nripendra Singh. THE deed of family settlement was also not produced by Smt. Kumud Rani. She also refused to hand over the deed of settlement to Raja Narendra Singh who, under the terms of the agreement between the executants, was entitled to keep the same. It was also alleged that Raja Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani were guilty of offences under Sections 406, 416, 420, 477 and 120-B, I. P. C. On the basis of this F. I. R. dated 29-12-1988, the investigation started. Apprehending their arrest by the police during the course of investigation, Nripendra Singh and Snit. Kumud Rani filed a Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 13681 of 1989 in this Court against Station Officer, F. S. Jariya, State of U. P. and the first informant Narendra Singh. The prayer in this writ petition was for quashing the investigation against the petitioners and to stay their arrest. This writ petition was dismissed on 16-12-1989 because in the meantime the police had submitted a charge-sheet against Nripendra Singh and Smt. Kumud Rani on 3- 8-1989 and the accused were ordered to be summoned. On the same day Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. (No. 10789 of 1989) was filed by Smt. Kumud Rani and Nripendra Singh praying for the quashing of the criminal pro ceedings against the petitioners as well as quashing the order summoning them on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police. After hearing both the parties Criminal Misc. Application No. 10789 of 1989 was dismissed by this Court on 11-5-1990.;