Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Jain vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 1 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10414 of 2021
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Jain
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State.
2. This petition has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved of order dated 12.03.2020, passed by learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat in Criminal Revision No. 88 of 2020. Criminal revision was filed by the present applicant being aggrieved of order dated 03.11.2020, passed by learned C.J.M., Baghpat, who had rejected the applicant filed by the applicant/petitioner to register a case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondents, who are close relative of the applicant.
3. Dispute is in regard to the ancestral property and where the ancestral property has been alienated on the basis of an unregistered Will. Question is will it give rise to cause of action for filing a criminal case or it being purely a civil dispute, remedy for the petitioner is before Civil Court by either challenging the so called forged Will or the transaction which has been carried out in regard to the ancestral property on the basis of so called forged Will.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in fact in one of the civil proceedings, his brother had given an undertaking that the property jointly belongs to the present petitioner and his brother, but subsequently, his brother and their legal heirs entered into a criminal conspiracy, prepared a forged Will and sold the property in favour of third person.
5. Placing reliance on such material, it is submitted that it is a fit case to direct the authorities to register FIR against opposite parties and investigate the matter and take it to a logical conclusion.
6. Learned AGA for the State, in his turn, submits that plain reading of the application under Section 156(3) reveals that it is purely a family dispute of civil nature. If applicant is aggrieved of the execution of Will, then remedy to him is to seek cancellation of that Will and get the same declared as null and void or forged and fabricated. Similarly, if respondents have alienated the suit property, in excess of their share, then applicant has a remedy of filing a suit for cancellation of the sale deed to the extent of his share.
7. However, it is submitted that an attempt to convert a civil proceedings into a criminal proceedings, cannot be allowed in the hands of the applicant.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the available record, prima facie, it appears that petitioner is trying to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal dispute, so to assert undue pressure on the opposite party.
9. Applicant is not remedy less, as has been rightly pointed out by learned AGA that applicant has an appropriate remedy under civil law. In view of such facts, the judgment of the learned revisional court which has also considered the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) and Anothers; (2007) 12 SCC 1, so also in case of Mohd. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Anothers; (2009) 8 SCC 751, this court is of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned orders, thus, no ground for interference is made out so to interfere in the impugned orders.
10. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2021
Vikram/-
