474 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from demolishing the companystructions made by the appellant on the aforesaid plot.
By the aforesaid impugned order, application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 Cr.
28 and 29 of 2009.
Initially, the appellant filed an application for discharge which was rejected.
In the above said suit the 2nd respondent has claimed the following relief That the suit of the applicant should be declare by granting the permanent injunction against the defendant with the directions that the defendant is restrained from illegally and forcibly everything the applicant from the disputed property or any of its part and should number interfere with the peaceful ownership and possession of the applicant.
That the defendant should pay the suit expenses to the applicant.
The 2nd respondent herein has filed Original Suit No.160 of 2008 which is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in Farrukhabad district in case No.160 of 2008.
Subsequently, he has filed application under Section 482 Cr.
Appeal Nos.
With regard to very same plot, the appellant herein also filed a suit in Original Suit No.
P.C. against the 2nd respondent herein alleging that he had stolen the original sale deed from the mutation file.
Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2 nd respondent has chosen to file the criminal companyplaint only in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation.
On 20th September, 2012, the 2nd respondent has filed a companyplaint against the appellant and Wasim Ali Khan.
AA The decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 29/12/1993, which was presented for registration on 25/01/1994 and the photocopy of which was entered on page number 65 of the book at people 111 252 at serial number 22 in the office of the sub registrar Kayamganj in the letter number 1, companyer number 1156 at page number 85/93 at serial number 22 on 20/01/1994, Chile ordered against the defendant and in favour of the applicant and the sub registrar office should be directed to make the entries accordingly.
That any other relief which is deemed appropriate may be granted to the applicant.
With regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before the companypetent civil companyrt and it is for the civil companyrt to decide whether any fraud is played or number by the appellant, on the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed.
30 and 27 of 2009 filed by the appellant whereas the respondent number2 had filed Misc Appeal Nos.
On such application filed, the impugned order is passed by High Court rejecting the same.
There is numberallegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent.
The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd December, 1997.
P.C. is dismissed by the High Court.
It is the case of the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.
At the outset it is to be numbered that the appellant has purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29th December,1993 which was registered on 5th January, 1994.
Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is pending in S. No.160 of 2008, only in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner.
Faheem Ali Khan died on 3rd December, 1997 and the 2nd respondent is one of the heirs of late Faheem Ali Khan.
The said suit is also pending in Case No.474 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in Farrukhabad district.
The aforesaid suits were clubbed and in interlocutory applications filed by the parties, a companymon order to maintain status quo in respect of land in dispute was passed.
It is stated that all the said appeals were decided by a companymon order by the Additional District Judge and application for injunction filed by the appellant was allowed and application filed by the 2nd respondent was dismissed, against which matters were carried further by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions which are stated to be pending before the High Court and numberinterim order is passed therein.
Against the interim order, matters were carried in Civil Misc.
On 10th April, 2012, brother of the appellant, Wasim Ali Khan filed a companyplaint under Section 200 Cr.
For the properties which were inherited upon 2nd respondent on the death of Faheem Ali Khan, mutation was effected on 16th November, 1998.
The dispute relates to plot No.102 measuring 0.101 hectare which has been renumbered as plot No.102/2 situated in Yahiyapur, Post Kaimganj, Pargana Kampil, Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, U.P. Originally, the aforesaid plot was owned by the father of the 2nd respondent late Faheem Ali Khan and the appellant claims purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29th December, 1993, registered on 5th January, 1994.
Subhash Reddy,J. Leave granted.
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused in Complaint Case No.708 of 2012, registered in Police Station, Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, aggrieved by an order dated 12th March, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2020.01.24 171606 IST 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Reason Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016.
We have heard Sri Prashant Bhushan learned companynsel assisted by Sri Omanakuttan K.K. and Sri Cheryl DSouza, Advocates, for the appellant and Sri Sudarshan Rajan, learned companynsel for the 2nd respondent companyplainant.
P.C for quashing of the above said proceedings and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate.
