Allahabad High Court
Naveen Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103704
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2044 of 2023
Revisionist :- Naveen Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kapil Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Case No.2308 of 2015 (State vs. Vinod and others) arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2015 under Sections 343, 384, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station-Surajpur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby discharge application moved by the accused was dismissed and the case posted for framing of charge.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the first informant (opposite party No.2 herein) filed an FIR naming two persons including present revisionist. The allegation in the FIR in nutshell is that the accused persons, who are professional criminals hatched a conspiracy; they took the first informant under their corrupt influence by serving him hard-drinks for him; he unknowingly fell in their trap; and kept on availing himself their services for three days and was not allowed to stray out of co-accused's house; they taking advantage of his incognizant state got executed a sale-deed of his entire agricultural land without paying anything. It is further alleged in the FIR that when he realized that he has been duped of his land by playing fraud on him, he asked the accused person to return his land. Initially, they kept on avoiding, but ultimately they refused to return the same. It is clearly alleged in the FIR that no sale consideration was ever paid for the aforesaid sale transaction.
5. The matter was investigated upon; the statement of witnesses recorded; charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 343, 384, 420, 506 IPC. During the course of the trial, which proceeded on the basis of the charge-sheet, the revisionist moved an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C with the submissions that he has been named in the FIR on the basis of false and concocted story and that there are a number of discrepancies in the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and that there is no substance in the allegations imputed against him; he is merely a marginal witness in the alleged sale-deed; no case is made out against her.
6. The learned trial court passed an order dismissing the same and now the revisionist is before this Court.
7. It is contended that in this case, the FIR has been lodged approximately with unexplained delay of 20 days; no such evidence could be collected during the investigation that it was the revisionist, who kept him in illegal custody for three days in a row; no evidence could be collected by the I.O. to prima facie show that the first informant had lost his senses because of administration of liquor to him as part of conspiracy hatched by the revisionist and his associates; on the other hand, in subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant stated that at the time of the execution of the sale-deed, he was conscious of all the facts; the learned trial court did not consider the evidence in right perspective and has rejected his discharge application against the weight of the evidence on record.
8. The application is opposed by learned AGA.
9. I perused the material on record as well as the impugned order.
10. The first informant has given a detailed statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. supporting the prosecution story. He, in nutshell, has stated that he was kept in illegal detention by one of the associates of the present revisionist, namely, Vinod; he has stated that present revisionist was one of the conspirators, who hatched this conspiracy to usurp his entire property without paying a penny; he lost his senses under the influence of liquor made available to him continuously; the first informant has described all the related circumstances under which he was made to execute the sale-deed. One of the most remarkable things, which has been pointed out in this case is that no sale consideration of about Rs.16,00,000/- was ever transferred in his bank-account and that there is most incredible defence on the side of the accused person that this hefty amount was given in cash.
11. It has also been pointed out by learned AGA that the facts coupled with the facts that when he was kept detained in the house of co-accused Vinod, the present revisionist was also present, are enough to show that he was hand in glove in the larger conspiracy to usurp his property.
12. In my view, there is enough evidence to prima facie constitute offence against the present revisionist and that there is no good ground to interfere in the order impugned.
13. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.5.2023/LN Tripathi
