- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the charge-sheet dated 18. 9. 2007 on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 1245 IX of 2007, State v. Panna Lal and others, has been registered against the accused applicants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, I. P. C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-l, Mathura and the order dated 24. 9. 2007 where by the Presiding Officerof the Court has taken cognizance against the accused persons in that case.
(2.) BEFORE dealing with the respective case of the parties it will be useful to go through their pedigree. There were two brothers Nand Kumar and Bigha Ram. Nand Kumar nad two sons named Prasadi and Ram Kishore. Ram Kishore had no issue. Prasadi had three sons named Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar who are applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the present case. Nand Kumar's brother Bigha Ram had three sons named Jagan Prasad, Devi Prasad and Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad did not have any male issue and he had one daughter only named Brahma Devi. Devi Prasad also had no issue. Jagan Prasad had a son named Mahesh Chand. It is alleged in the FIR dated 13. 10. 04 registered on the application of Sri Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Opposite Party No. 2 in this case) that Bigha Ram was owner of the property entered in Khata No. 1 and 2 of Mohalla Hardutta, Tehsil and District Mathura. Since Devi Prasad So Bigha Ram had no issue he had given the land of his share (inherited from Bigha Ram) to his nephew Mahesh Chand. Since Gaya Prasad So Bigha Ram had no male issue, the share of Gaya Prasad in the land was also inherited by Mahesh Chand. Thus, Mahesh Chand became owner of the entire property of Bigha Ram by inheritance; and outof this property he sold its one third share to the complainant Mahesh Chand Sharma, opposite- party No. 2. In the present case, vide a registered sale deed dated 6. 10. 1986. Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad and Mahesh Chandra Sharma son of Ganga Charan Sharma started to raise construction on that land on 23. 9. 1996, and at that time the accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar restrained them from raising constructions and they claimed that the land had been entered in their name. Then Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad and Mahesh Chand Sharma present complainant, inspected the file of Case No. 293 14, Panna Lal and others v. Prasadi Lal and others, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act Mauja Goverdhan Brahaman Pargana Mathura in the Court of Additional Tehsildar, Mathura and then they came to know that the above named accused persons in collusion with Lekhpal Prahlad Singh of Goverdhan had got submitted a false report under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual in the Court on 18. 8. 1992 showing Jagan Prasad and Devi Prasad sons of Bigha Ram as dead persons and further showing that Jagan Prasad had no living issue and showing the accused. applicants as heirs of Bigha Ram being grand sons of Nand Kumar brother of Bigha Ram. Lekhpal Prahlad Singh gave a false statement in the Court of Additional Tehsildar on 9. 10. 1992 asserting that Mahesh Chand had also died, and thus the accused applicants obtained the mutation orders in their favour by mis- representation of facts. Then the complainant Mahesh Chandra Sharma moved an application for setting aside that order of mutation. This application was allowed by the learned S. D. M. , Mathura on 26. 12. 1998. Thereafter the accused persons filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Agra but that appeal was also dismissed on 18. 8. 2003. In this way, the accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Raj Kumar in collusion with Prahlad Singh, Lekhpal had hatched a conspiracy to cause damage to the complainant and had prepared fictitious documents and had given false statements in the Court of Tehsildar, Mathura alleging that Mahesh Chand son of Jagan Prasad had died, while Mahesh Chand was alive at that time. Thus the accused had committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, I. P. C. Hence Mahesh Chandra Sharma, the complainant moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. againstthe above accused persons on 13. 10. 2004. On the above application, the learned Magistrale passed an order directing the police of P. S. Goverdhan, Mathura to register a case against the accused persons and,investigate the same. The police accordingly registered Case Crime No. C51 of 2004 against the accused persons, but after investigation, the police submitted the final report on 10. 12. 04. Aggrieved with that report, the complainant Mahesh Chandra Sharma filed the protest petition on 19. 3. 05. The Magistrate treated that protest petition as a complaint vide the order dated 7. 6. 05 and fixed a date for statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved with that order treating the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. as a complaint, Mahesh Chandra Sharma filed Criminal Revision No. 335/05 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mathura. During pendency of this revision, the learned Magis trate dismissed the above complaint in default under Section 203, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved with that order the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 526 of 2005 Mahesh Chand Sharma v. State.
(3.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 335 05 was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 9, Mathura vide judgment dated 31. 10. 05 and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 7. 6. 05 passed on the protest petition treating the same to be a complaint was set aside. CRIMINAL Revision No, 526 of 2005 was also allowed by the same Judge on the same date and the order of dismissal of the complaint was set aside. In compliance of the aforesaid orders, the learned Magistrate again heard the complainant, on the final report submitted by the police, and he rejected the final report vide his order dated 7. 7. 07, and directed the concerned Station Officer to get the matter further investigated and to submit the report. In compliance of the above order, the matter was further investigated, and this time the lnvestigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against all the ac cused persons under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120b, I. P. C. On the basis of that charge-sheet, Cr. Case No. 1245 IX of 2007 was registered againstthe accused persons and the Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons vide his order dated 24. 9. 2007.;