Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2015
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 23
AFR
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17586 of 2014
Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Gupta
Opposite Parties :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- S.K. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Parties :- Govt. Advocate, Vikas Singh
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State respondent and Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for OP no.-2 and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the proceedings of the charge-sheet no. 20/2012 dated 06.09.2012 under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Fatehpur on the basis of which case no. 3892/2012 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Gupta and Another) under Section 420 IPC relating to case crime no. 16/2011 is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur.
3. The complainant (present OP no. 2) had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with averment that his wife Rajshree Devi Gupta had purchased 10 biswa land through sale deed dated 16.03.1988 and her name was mutated over it. Ram Chandra Gupta, Vinay Kumar Gupta and Smt. Sarla Gupta have procured a forged will-deed allegedly executed by Jai Siya Ram Gupta. On the basis of said forged will-deed, they had got their names mutated over the land of late Jai Siya Ram Gupta, after his death, on 15.12.2008. Then Ram Chandra Gupta and Sarla Gupta) have executed a power of attorney in favour of Vinay Kumar Gupta. On strength of said power of attorney the Vinay Kumar Gupta had executed a sale deed of the portion of plot no. 59, of village Bhayaupur in favour of Suresh Chandra Gupta (applicant) on 28.03.2009. Suresh Chandra Gupta had full knowledge that said land does not belong to Ram Chandra Gupta, Vinay Kumar Gupta and Sarla Gupta; but in spite of it Suresh Chandra Gupta had purchased the said land and thus committed forgery for the land of the complainant.
4. On the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of Prakash Chandra Gupta the case crime no. 16/2011 was registered and investigation started after which final report was submitted by the police. Then complainant had moved protest petition against it. Then the Magistraate Court had ordered re-investigation in the matter. After re-investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Section 420 IPC was filed against Vinay Kumar Gupta and Suresh Chandra Gupta. Then the purchaser Suresh Chandra Gupta (/accused) had moved present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said charge-sheet.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is bona fide purchaser for value in good faith, who had verified the name of Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Vinay Kumar Gupta and Sarla Gupta in revenue records and thereafter, on the basis of power of attorney executed by them in favour of Vinay Kumar Gupta the sale deed was executed. He was bona fide purchaser of the said land and had become owner of the property in question. No offence has been committed by him. He also contended that this dispute is purely of a civil nature which cannot be decided by the civil court. Therefore, charge-sheet should be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 contended that the applicant was witness of the power of attorney executed by Ram Chandra Gupta, Vinay Gupta and Sarla Gupta. He had full knowledge of the ownership of the wife of the complainant over the disputed plot. He had deliberately got the sale-deed executed in his favour after conspiring with the co-accused and other persons. Therefore his application should be dismissed as it has been based on mala fide.
7. Learned AGA contended that after investigation, police had submitted the chargesheet against two persons after finding prima facie evidence of cheating against them. Therefore, petition should be dismissed.
8. It is admitted fact that according to the prosecution case wife of the complainant is the co-owner of another portion of same plot no. 59. It is also admitted fact that the name of sellers, namely Ram Chandra Gupta, Vinay Kumar Gupta and Sarla Gupta was recorded over the disputed land as owner and bhumidhar. This entry to that effect in revenue record is based on directions of competent revenue court at the time of passing of the mutation order in their favour on 15.12.2008. The dispute in question to be resolved by the court is as to whether the complainant's wife is owner of the plot sold by power of attorney holder (Vinay Kumar Gupta) in favour of the applicant/accused Suresh Chandra Gupta or not.
9. Without declaration of the right and title of disputed plot in favour of the wife of complainant the prosecution relating to charge-sheet cannot be succeed. Only revenue record had jurisdiction to declare ownership and title of agricultural property like subject matter of dispute, which is plot no. 59.
10. It is admitted legal position that ownership of the agricultural property can only be decided by the revenue court. The jurisdiction of other courts is barred in this regard by the provisions of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. For accepting the averments mentioned in criminal complaint filed by OP no.- 2 (/complainant) the criminal court has to accept that complainant's wife is owner and bhumidhar of said disputed plot, but revenue records and entries in it as well as the orders of revenue courts are the proof of the fact that the said courts have been accepting the applicants as owner and bhumidhar of said property. In these circumstances the OP no.-2 has no title or right, possessory or otherwise, over the disputed land. Since the ownership of disputed plot cannot be declared by criminal court in favour of wife of OP no.-2, therefore in any circumstance, the said complaint cannot succeed and accused/applicants cannot be convicted. Therefore it would be unfair and contrary to interest of justice to continue the criminal proceeding and direct the applicants to go through protracted procedure of trial. Therefore the continuation of criminal proceeding in this case would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Since the possibility of conviction of applicants is bleak and continuation of criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal.
11. Therefore by exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court and for preventing the abuse of process of court, this petition u/s 482 CrPC is allowed. The proceedings of case no. 3892/2012 (State v. Vinay Kumar Gupta and Another), crime no. 16/2011, section 420 IPC relating to p.s. Kotwali, Fatehpur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur are hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned immediately for ensuring compliance.
Order Date :-09.10.2015
Sanjeev
