Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:38146
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13854 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Gopal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gulab Chandra,Rupesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,G.A.,Jetendra Kumar Pandey,Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Raj Mangal Tiwari,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 and perused the record.
By moving this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made to quash the summoning order dated 4.2.2020 and the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 940 of 2016, Rajendra Kumar Vs. Ram Gopal and others, under section 420 I.P.C., police station Kotwali District Mainpuri.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties are the real brothers. Sonpati the wife of the opp. party no. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of one Sushila Devi on 4.2.2000 and later on a civil suit was filed by Sonpati that by impersonating her the forged sale deed was executed in favour of Sushila Devi. This civil suit was decreed vide order dated 31.8.2001. Neither in the plaint of the suit of Sonpati nor in the finding of the court, it had come that it was the applicant who substituting Kallo for Sonpati got the disputed sale deed executed in favour of Sushila. Even then after the decree of the civil suit in favour of Sonpati, the opp. party no. 2 by moving an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. lodged an FIR against the applicant that it was only the applicant with whose connivance Kallo by impersonating Sonpati executed the sale deed in favour of Sushila. After the investigation the final report was submitted and on this final report further investigation was ordered and after further investigation again the final report was filed supporting the previous final report. Against this final report, protest petition was filed by the opp. party no. 2 which was registered as complaint and after the statements of the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., the present applicant has been summoned to face trial under section 420 I.P.C. while no case under section 420 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the applicant. As per the allegations in the complaint because the applicant neither cheated nor dishonestly induced any person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, no offence can be said to be made out against the applicant, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 submitted that it was the only the present applicant who by impersonating Sonpati substituting her by Kallo the daughter-in-law of Sushila Devi got executed the sale deed in favour of Sushila Devi, the mother-in-law of Kallo. The husbands of both Kallo and Sushila have also been implicated in the matter.
From the perusal of the civil court judgment, it is found that there is no whisper of the fact that it was Kallo who impersonated Sonpati with the connivance of the applicant.
If we go through the statement of the opp. party no. 2 under section 200 Cr.P.C. he has only mentioned that by committing forgery the applicant got executed a sale deed of the property of Sonpati in favour of Sushila Devi. The same version is of Sonpati who has stated in her statement that as her real brother-in-law has enmity with her, so in connivance with rest accused persons by committing forgery he got executed the sale deed of the property of Sonpati in favour of Sushila Devi. Same statement is of the witness Dinesh Chandra, all the three witnesses have simply made the version that as the applicant was having enmity with his real brother regarding the partition of the property so he by substituting Kallo in place of Sonpati committed forgery and got executed the sale deed in faour of Sushila Devi. In the statements of both witnesses and also in the statement of the complainant, it has come that it was Mahesh, the husband of Kallo who impostering his wife as Sonpati got executed the sale deed in favour of Sushila Devi, the mother-in-law of Kallo. The role assigned to the present applicant is of committing forgery with Sonpati by impersonating her. It is true that prima facie case is to be seen at the stage of summoning the accused but in the present case not even a prima facie case can be said to be made out against the applicant. Because apart from the oral version of the witnesses and the complainant that the forgery was done by the applicant, there is nothing on record to show the connivance of the applicant in the offence. The role of impersonating Sonpati is also assigned to co-accused Mahesh. The case of the present applicant is different from those of rest co-accused persons. In the opinion of the court, merely on the basis of oral allegation, in the absence of any prima facie evidence offence u/s 420 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against the applicant. The trial court in routine manner on the basis of oral version of the witnesses and the complainant has passed the impugned order which in the eye of law needs to be quashed.
The summoning order dated 4.2.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 940 of 2016, Rajendra Kumar Vs. Ram Gopal and others, under section 420 I.P.C., police station Kotwali District Mainpuri are hereby quashed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is thus allowed.
Order Date :- 1.3.2024
Gss
