Uttarakhand High CourtMahipal Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 7 May, 2013Author:U.C. DhyaniBench:U.C. Dhyani1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                        NAINITAL

                  Criminal Misc. Application No. 603 of 2008
                        (UnderSection 482of Cr.P.C.)

Mahipal Singh and another                                                .......... Applicants

                                                versus

State of Uttarakhand & another                                           ....... Respondents
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the petitioners-applicants.
Shri P.S. Saun, A.G.A., present for the State-respondents.


U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)1.         By means of present petition moved underSection 482Cr.P.C., the
           applicants/petitioners (Mahipal Singh and Smt. Amlesh Devi) seek
           to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 22 of 2008,
           captioned as "State Vs. Smt. Amlesh Devi and others" relating to
           offences punishable underSections 420,467and468of I.P.C
           pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
           Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar.2.    The first information report was lodged by M/s Sanga Nadehi
           Spining Ltd., through its proprietor Mr. Dinesh Agarwal on
           21.09.2007 at Police Station, Jaspur, District-Udham Singh Nagar
           against the accused persons, namely, Smt. Amlesh Devi and
           Mahipal Singh in respect of offences punishable under Sections
           420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C.3.     According to the F.I.R., an agreement to sell was executed by
           applicant no. 2 Smt. Amlesh Devi in favour of respondent no. 2,
           whereby applicant no. 2 agreed to sell a piece of land situated at
           village Nadehi, Tehsil-Jaspur/Kashipur, District-Udham Singh
           Nagar in favour of respondent no. 2 and received an earnest money
           of ` 7,60,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty Thousand). It is the
           allegation that applicant no. 2 Smt. Amlesh Devi depicted herself to2be the owner in possession of land in question, whereas, in fact, she
     was not so. The villagers told respondent no. 2 that there was a civil
     dispute pending between Ved Prakash and the applicants. It was
     also the allegation that the name of the accused persons/applicants
     was not mutated in the revenue records.4.   After the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the present
     applicants/accused persons in respect of offences allegedly
     committed by them. The Court below took cognizance on the
     chargesheet and accused persons were summoned to face the trial.5.   Aggrieved against the said order, present application underSection
     482Cr.P.C. was filed. Notice was issued to the respondent no. 2
     which was served upon it through its counsel Shri Pitamber Singh,
     Advocate on 07.11.2008, but none appeared for the said respondent.6.   Learned counsel for the applicant, at the very out set, drew the
     attention of this Court towards the extract of Khatauni which was
     enclosed as annexure no. 1 to the petition. The entries made in the
     extract of Khatauni of fasli year 1411 to 1416 are important in the
     context of this case. The name of Smt. Amlesh Devi was recorded
     in the land in question. In other words, her name was mutated in
     place of Ved Prakash, the previous owner in possession, in respect
     of the land in question. The said entry was made on 16.04.2004.
     There were other entries also of different dates i.e. 03.08.2004 and
     11.07.2005.7.   In a nutshell, the name of the applicant no. 2, was entered in the
     revenue record, in place of Ved Prakash Singh, so far as the land in
     controversy was concerned. The F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2006.
     The first information report itself indicated that the complainant
     lodged the F.I.R. only when some villagers told them that a civil
     dispute between the Ved Prakash Singh and the present applicant
     was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),3Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. Thus the entries made in the extract
       of Khatauni clearly manifest that the applicant no. 2 was the owner
       in possession of the land in question and the first information report
       was filed by the respondent no. 2 against the applicants under some
       misconception.8.     Criminal proceedings, in such a situation, cannot be allowed to
       stand. The ruling of Hon'ble Apex court given in Murari Lal Gupta
       Vs. Gopi Singh 2006 (2) SCC (Criminal) 430 supports applicants'
       case. It is to be noted here that applicant no. 2 was found to be the
       owner of the land in question, her name was mutated in the revenue
       record and the sale deed was not yet executed in favour of the
       respondent no. 2. It was only agreement to sell in favour of
       respondent no.2, that too based upon the lawful entries made in
       favour of applicant no. 2 in revenue records. In such a situation it
       cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the applicant
       cheated the respondent no. 2.9.     Application underSection 482Cr.P.C. is allowed. Proceedings of
       Criminal Case No. 22 of 2008 captioned as "State vs. Smt. Amlesh
       Devi and others", pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
       Magistrate, Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar are hereby
       quashed in respect of present applicants.(U.C. Dhyani, J.)
     07.05.2013
     mamta