Allahabad High Court
Meera Devi And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1313 of 2019
Revisionist :- Meera Devi And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Indrajeet Shukla,Manoj Kumar
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 8.8.2029 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Case No.993 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.642 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, whereby the application filed by the revisionists under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.
3. The land in Gata No.1771 was mortgaged to the complainant by its owner, Srinath, S/o Pachu on 28.3.1993 for Rs.40,000/- on a stamp paper. One of the condition of the mortgage deed was that whenever this land would be sold by its owner, the first right to purchase the land would be of the complainant. The compliant has been in possession of the said and since 28.3.1993. Chinta Devi, wife of Srinath after separation from Srinath, started living separately 32 years before with one Bharat S/o Tulsi and she got re-married with him. Two daughters born from the wedlock of Bharat and Chinta Devi, namely, Meera Devi and Omlata on 13.9.2004 on the basis of succession certificate obtained on the basis of the incorrect facts, got the said land mutated in their names. When the complainant objected to the said mutation, Tehsildar, Tanda vide order dated 18.3.2015 cancelled the mutation in favour of Meera Devi and Omlata. Though their names were not recorded in the revenue records, Meera Devi and Omlata sold the said property on 30.6.2005 in favour of Chandra Bali.
4. Learned Magistrate considering the evidence brought on record during the course of investigation, found that prima facie there is sufficient evidence available on record to summon the revisionists under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the discharge application of the revisionists. This Court does not find that the learned Magistrate has committed any error of law or jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that there is enough material available on record to summon the accused for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
6. At the time of framing of charge or discharge, the Court is required to see whether prima facie offence is made out against the accused or not. If the evidence available on record discloses strong suspicion against the accused for commission of offence, the accused cannot be discharged, but he has to face the trial.
7. In the present case, facts and evidence would disclose that evidence available on record would arise strong suspicion for commission of offence by the accused and, therefore, this Court does not find that the learned Magistrate has committed any error of law or jurisdiction in rejecting the discharge application.
8. Revision being without any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.
9. However, it is provided that if the revisionists surrender before the trial Court within a period of ten days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered by the trial court in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. Through Director.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022
Rao/-
