Allahabad High Court
Akash Varma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191447
Court No. - 81
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6812 of 2023
Petitioner :- Akash Varma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bilal Hasan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Today, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Bilal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.
3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with the submissions that the sale deed dated 11.06.2019 has been executed fraudulently, in connivance with the witnesses and the parties thereof regarding certain portion of Gata no. 135. The sale deed is a result of fraud and forgery. The revisional court and the trial court committed error in rejecting his application for registration of FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. From perusal of the papers on record, it is revealed that the petitioner moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations, in nutshell, that the applicant is the owner in possession of certain land Gata no. 135 area 0.454 hectare and Gata no. 137 area 0.210 hectare; that Smt. Bitoli Devi, since long, had an eye on his land to illegally grab the same, therefore, Smt. Vitoli Devi executed a fraudulent sale deed in favour of Rajesh Kumar Dubey. She had no title in the disputed land to legally convey any title in favour of the transferee. Rakesh Kumar Dubey and Pradeep Kumar Dubey stood marginal witnesses, at the time of sale deed, therefore, an FIR may be registered against them.
5. The Magistrate, after hearing the applicant, took a view that the matter is essentially of civil nature and that in a case of such nature, the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., cannot be allowed. The applicant preferred a Criminal Revision no. 123 of 2021. The revisional court agreed with the opinion of the trial court and dismissed the revision.
6. The trial court took the support of judgments given by the Supreme Court in M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Limited and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 and another judgment in Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 8 SCC 751.
7. The High Court of Allahabad in judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2023 (Rameshwari vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others) decided on 8.5.2023, has held as below:-
"......The Magistrate/court concerned cannot be expected to act upon an application in a mechanical manner. He shall be failing in his duty in case he fails to apply his mind. Settled position of law is that the Magistrate shall order for registration of a case if application 'discloses' commission of cognizable offence. In my view, the disclosure of cognizable offence cannot be construed to mean replication of words or the facts in such a manner as may fit within four corners of an offence defined in statutes. This is a common knowledge that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may be drafted cleverly and may be dotted with sham assertions or half truths with legal advice, so as to persuade the courts to spring into action. If such a narrow and short sighted interpretation is done, it will be like playing in the hands of unscrupulous litigant. While passing an order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the court is expected to apply its judicial mind. He is expected to be judicious, discreet and cautious and not to be swayed by mere use of certain words and legal terminology. He can certainly look for substance in the allegations and existence of life in the assertions.
8. It may usefully be noted that that despite dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the revisionist/complainant still has certain remedies open in law."
8. From the papers on record and perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The orders are speaking and have been passed by applying judicial mind. The petitioner has failed to point out any violation of law or any such factual ground, which would justify the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
9. The petition lacks merits and is, hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
#Vikram/-
