Allahabad High Court
Mohd. A (In 1St Fir Mohd. Ajij) vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 18638 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mohd. A (In 1st Fir Mohd. Ajij)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Angrej Nath Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kr. Tripathi
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
By this Writ Petition, the First Information Report No. 0413 of 2019, registered on 28.05.2019 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. with Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda has been challenged.
Learned Counsel submits that petitioner bonafidly purchased a property. He later on found that seller is not the person in whose name the land exist. Knowing about it, he filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and even initiated a criminal case by taking remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The First Information Report has yet been lodged implicating the petitioner by the owner of the land. It is alleging that fraudulently, the sale deed has been executed by person having no authority for it. For the fraudulent act, the petitioner has also been implicated ignoring that he is a bona fide purchaser. It is also stated that having filed the suit, the matter now remains essentially of a civil nature. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has contested the petition. It is stated that petitioner is none else but a land mafia. He enter into the fraudulent transaction as and when property is found unoccupied. It becomes very difficult for the title holder to get the possession of the land due to fraudulent sale deed. This is the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner (land mafia) to grab the open land. The petitioner is not an innocent person but entered into the sale transaction with a person not having title of the land. The payment of consideration was shown even through cheques but was not encashed by the seller and there an advocate was got involved to support the transaction.
The complainant could know about it thus initiate the action. The petitioner with calculated move filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In those litigations also, it has not been stated that the cheques given by the petitioner were encashed by the seller. It is also stated that whenever one purchases the land, confirms the title in favour of the seller. They also see the original documents of the land in possession of the seller. No such effort was made by the petitioner; rather the sale deed was entered in reference to the "khatauni" without verifying as to whether the executer is impersonating him or a genuine seller.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid, it cannot be said to be a litigation purely of civil nature; rather needs to be taken seriously by this court looking the practice adopted by the land mafia in the State of U.P. That needs to be curbed to save the innocent title holder of the land. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the writ petition.
We have heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
The perusal of the record shows serious allegation not only against the person impersonated him for sale of land belonging the complainant but against the petitioner also. It is no doubt that petitioner has preferred a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and even lodged an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. but perusal of those document does not show any payment through cheque to show bona fide purchase of land and even verification of the seller before entering into the transaction. Serious allegations have been made by the counsel for the complainant and at this stage, we do not want to comment on facts which may effect the investigation. In any case, we do not find it to be a case of civil nature; rather the allegation against the petitioner is to enter into the fraudulent transaction being land mafia and modus operandi has been explained by the counsel for the complainant.
We had asked the counsel as to whether petitioner had gone through the original documents of the land before its purchase. It is stated that petitioner had only seen the "khatauni" and not the title document. This conduct of the petitioner itself shows his doubtful character.
In view of the fact aforesaid, we do not find a case to quash the First Information Report rather; while dismissing the petition, a direction is given to the Investigating Officer to make proper investigation. Any casual approach therein would be viewed seriously. The complainant is given liberty to inform this Court in case of mingling of the investigating officer with anyone.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Ashish
