Allahabad High Court
Praveen Anand Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 August, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22115 of 2016
Applicant :- Praveen Anand Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Narain Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
Sri H.N.Singh "Sanjay", Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This petition has been moved for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 686 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 1091 of 2015) - (State Versus Praveen Anand Singh & others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, & 506 I.P.C, Police Station - Kothi Bhar, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the matter arose between the parties regarding the WILL of Panchu Gopal Banerji and the matter was taken under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The order passed in the said proceedings was challenged by Mayank Mohan Agarwal before this Court in Writ Petition 'C' No. 15683 of 2016, vide order dated 07.04.2016 and interim measure was provided by the Court that any third party interest created during the pendency of the writ petition, shall abide by the final decision therein.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a civil suit has already been filed by respondent no. 2 against Mayank Mohan Agarwal, that is still pending. An F.I.R was also lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicants as well as Mayank Mohan Agarwal and various allegations are being made and on the basis of that F.I.R, a charge-sheet has already been submitted as referred above.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicants are only marginal witnesses of the WILL and police has submitted final report against Mayank Mohan Agrawal, whereas learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 stated that there is no person like Mayan Mohan Agrawal and all the forgeries are being done by the applicants thereby procuring the forged death certificate as well as forged WILL has been created.
The only contention on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant is that writ regarding the order passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is still pending and lodging due to the proceedings that are being under taken under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, all these proceedings of civil suit and lodging of F.I.R has been initiated due to ulterior motive.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 in case Mayank Mohan Agarwal is produced before the Court by the applicants then he will concede to the allegations made by the applicants.
In the circumstances, it is directed that applicants may produce Mayank Mohan Agrawal on the next date of listing.
List on 23rd August, 2016.
Order Date :- 02.08.2016.
Vinod.
