Madhya Pradesh High Court
Valiulla vs Mohammad Ismail on 8 February, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-19874-2020
Valiulla Vs. Mohammad Ismile and others
Through video conferencing
Gwalior, Dated: 08.02.2022
Shri R.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri M.K. Chaudhary,
Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Yadav, Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri C.P.Singh, Counsel for the State/respondent No.4.
Record of the Court below has been received.
This application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been filed
for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
17/01/2020 passed by JMFC, Sironj, District Vidisha in Criminal
Case No.401/2004, by which the respondents No.1 to 3 have been
acquitted for the charges under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC.
The necessary facts for disposal of this application in short are
that the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents
No.1 to 3 on the allegation that on 08/06/2021, the respondents No.1
to 3 with an intention to grab the property got a sale deed executed
from his uncle Fazal-ur-Rahman without making payment of any
compensation amount. It is alleged that the applicant is the owner and
in possession of the house No.32 situated in Ward No.20, Kartik Path
Sironj, District Vidisha. On 28/04/2001, the respondent No.2 entered
into an agreement to purchase the said house and an amount of
Rs.10,000/- was also given to the applicant by way of advance. The
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-19874-2020
Valiulla Vs. Mohammad Ismile and others
sale deed was to be executed by 15/06/2001, but the same was not
done and, accordingly, a notice was also sent by the
complainant/applicant on 02/07/2001, but still the sale deed was not
executed. It was further alleged that with an intention to
misappropriate and grab the property, the respondents projected the
houses in two parts and got the sale deed registered on 08.06.2001
from Fazal-ur-Rahman, whereas Fazal-ur-Rahman was unfit and was
not in a position even to walk for the last 4-5 months. He had also
lost his capacity of understanding the things and by misleading him,
the respondents took him to Vidisha and got the sale deed executed
and even consideration amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was not given. It was
further alleged that respondent No. 3 was also involved in the forgery
as he had stood as a witness to the sale deed along with one Abdul
Kadir Beg, who died during the pendency of complaint.
The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the Trial
Court after considering the evidence held that the allegation of the
complainant is that by winning over his uncle Fazal-ur-Rahman, a
false sale deed was got executed. However, it was also observed that
even on the date of filing of the complaint, Fazal-ur-Rahman was
alive, but he did not take any legal action. The complainant/applicant
had also admitted that after the execution of the sale deed, his uncle
Fazal-ur-Rahman remained alive for 8-9 years, but no action was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-19874-2020
Valiulla Vs. Mohammad Ismile and others
taken. Although it was the case of the applicant that he was
authorised by his uncle Fazal-ur-Rahman for taking legal action, but
no power of attorney was filed. Considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court came to a conclusion
that no offence under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC is
made out.
Counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in
the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Even otherwise, it is well
established principle of law that if two views are possible, then the
judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed merely on the ground that
the Trial Court should have adopted another view.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court
in dismissing the complaint.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Abhi ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
2022.02.09
10:30:42
+05'30'
