Allahabad High Court
Mundraj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158767
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3576 of 2025
Mundraj
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Ankit Agarval
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ajatshatru Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material on record.
2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case No. 57580 of 2022, (State Vs. Mundraj and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 576 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad by which charge has been framed against the revisionist and another accused Desh Raj.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said charge has been framed on extraneous material, no ground was available to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad to frame the charge in the relevant sections. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that, so far as Section 420 IPC is concerned, no such charge can be made out. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, on dated 16.01.2013, the power of attorney was executed in the name of Desh Raj and not the revisionist. The said power of attorney was executed between one Narendra Suri and Desh Raj and was registered thereafter. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred one judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6211 of 2007) reported in 2010 (2) CriLJ 2223. Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that so far as the revisionist is concerned he has nothing to do with the said power of attorney, which has been executed between two persons and for the reason that the person in whose favour the said power of attorney was executed, happened to be his father and, therefore, if at all, any offence was ought to have been committed, may be against the another accused Desh Raj and a person who has executed the said power of attorney namely Narendra Suri and revisionist being the son of power attorney holder has nothing to do and nowhere concerned with the said transaction.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that the said power of attorney dated 16.01.2023 executed between the parties may be a registered document, but if any, document which has been obtained by deceitful means with the intention of committing a fraud or cheating, and ultimately liable to be declared as void, for the reason that a document may be registered in accordance with law, but the contents of the document may not be found in accordance with law, and the contents of the document authorized, some one else to commit a wrong, then, have to be read in the totality and be taken in letter and spirit. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that so far as, the land in question is concerned the power of attorney holder namely Narendra Suri, who has authorized another accused Desh Raj was neither the owner of the land, but the said land belongs to the Government, as public property. The said land in question is a public property, he has executed the document, for which he was not authorized to do so, hence, intention is most important aspect, while executing the document and consequentially, some benefit has arisen in favour of the accused persons as much as, by holding the power of attorney, a person becomes authorized to alienate sale/transfer the said property, for which he as not authorized to do so. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has next submitted that, initially property was registered to another accused and was initially authorized in respect of the property, having area of 500 Square Yards, but the same has been sold by manipulating the documents to the extent of selling the area of 1500 Square Yards by extrapolating.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has referred the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s. 482 No. 34330 of 2019 (Desh Raj Vs. State of U.P. And Another), filed by another accused namely Desh Raj, wherein proceedings were stayed vide order dated 19.09.2019. The revisionist has also filed another Criminal Revision No. 4453 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.07.2025. The revisionist alongwith another person has also filed an Application U/s. 482 No. 15960 of 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned cognizance order dated 23.12.2022 and the said application has been dismissed, after hearing the parties, this Court passed the following order in Application U/s. 482 No. 15960 of 2023:-
"From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed."
6. Now at this stage, the revisionist has filed this revision and the charge has already been framed against him and another accused. Now since the charge has been framed the accused/revisionist will have ample opportunity to defend his case by adducing the relevant evidence in his favour, and may cross examine the other side hence, at this stage no interference is called for.
7. The present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
September 9, 2025
Vikram
