- (1.) HEARD Sri Dileep Kumar, assisted by Sri Sharique Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A. G. A. for the State. The applicants by means of this application under Section -482 Cr. P. C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer to quash the chargesheet No. 212/2013, dated 11.7.2013 submitted in Case Crime No. 376/2013, under Sections -420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B and 167 IPC, P. S. -Kalyanpur, district -Kanpur Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1306/2013; State Versus Smt. Adesh Kumari and others, pending before A. C. M. M. -II, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant no. 1 is the bonafide purchaser of plot No. 251 situated at Mauja -Naurangabad, Tehsil and Pargana -Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed plot') from one Smt. Adesh Kumari, who claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of late Chhotey Lal and owner of the disputed plot and the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the marginal witnesses of the sale deed. The opposite party no. 2 alleged that late Chhotey Lal had executed an agreement to sale in his favour in respect of the disputed plot which provided that he shall execute the sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 2 after obtaining permission from the ceiling authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 which was repealed in the year 1999 but even thereafter Chhotey Lal did not execute any sale deed in respect of the disputed plot and in the mean time he died and Smt. Adesh Kumari by virtue of being his widow succeeded to his estate including the disputed plot and her name was recorded as Bhumidhar of the aforesaid plot in place of her husband. Thereafter the applicant no. 1 got executed an agreement to sale in his favour on 1.12.2013 in respect of the disputed plot and when the opposite party no. 2 came to know about the agreement to sale dated 1.12.2013, he filed Original Suit No. 353 of 2013 on 19.3.2013 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the applicant no. 1 and Smt. Adesh Kumari from interfering with his possession over the disputed plot. The opposite party no. 2 also filed an application for temporary injunction in the aforesaid suit but the trial Judge refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the opposite party no. 2 vide his order dated 3.4.2013. During the pendency of the application for temporary injunction the opposite party no. 2 obtained the sale -deed in his favour in respect of the dispute plot from one Laxmi Narayan, brother of late Chhotey Lal on 4.3.2013.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has submitted that the non -applicant Smt. Adesh Kumari alleged that by the aforesaid sale deed Laxmi Narayan had sold her share in the disputed plot to the opposite party no. 2. When the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of Smt. Adesh Kumari, she filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the magistrate on 12.4.2013 against the opposite party no. 2 and Laxmi Narayan. The opposite party no. 2 also moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on 25.4.2013 against Smt. Adesh Kumari and the present applicants which is still pending adjudication. Yet another application was filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on 4.5.2013 concealing the factum of filing of the earlier application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by him. The said application was allowed by the concerned magistrate and the first information report on the basis of which the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicants was registered. The main allegation made against the applicants in the first information report is that Smt. Adesh Kumari who was never married to late Chhotey Lal in collusion with the applicants, has forged and manipulated the entries in the Pariwar Register in her favour as the widow of late Chhotey Lal by moving an application for correcting / amending her name in the Pariwar Register despite being fully aware of the fact that she was not the widow of Chhotey Lal, which was allowed by the resolution dated 16.3.2013 and amended copy of the extract of the Pariwar Register was issued by the concerned department on 17.4.2013, although the name of Kamla Devi was recorded in the Pariwar register as the widow of late Chhotey Lal after his death in the year 2002 and remained recorded as such till her death on 23.2.2013. In para 10 of the short counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, it has been alleged that the name of the wife of late Chhotey Lal was Kamla, as would be evident from the perusal of Annexure SCA -4 and after the death of Chhotey Lal, Smt. Adesh Kumari in collusion with the applicants manipulated and forged the entries in the Pariwar Register showing herself as widow of late Chhotey Lal with the intention of grabbing his property.;