Friday, August 19, 2022

Allahabad High Court dismisses plea with Rs 50,000 cost for making false statement

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition with a cost of Rs 50,000 filed seeking to transfer a criminal case to another investigating agency by making a false statement.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice  Ajai Tyagi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ram Kishan.

Ram Kishan, son of Tekram, who is the petitioner, had lodged a FIR dated March 16, 2019 registered as Case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr with the allegation that plots were the recorded holding of Ramphal, son of Nora, and after his death on April 20, 1979 direction was issued by the Tehsildar to record the name of his heirs Ramveer & Prakash, sons of Hari Singh, Ram Kishan, Paim Singh, Jaggu, Jaipal and Jagat Singh, sons of Tekram, and the mutation entry continued during fasli year 1982 to 1984.

It is further alleged that in the consolidation proceedings and even thereafter till date, revenue entries remain intact and that a claim was raised by Bijendra, Dharmendra, Rajendra & Arun, sons of late Giriraj Singh and Nishant, son of late Nawab, and Smt Santara, wife of late Giriraj Singh, for mutation claiming them to be the legal heirs of Smt Shisho daughter of Ramphal, and that the application under Section 34 was rejected on December 11, 2017 allegedly on the ground that Smt Shisho had pre-deceased Ramphal.

It is alleged that thereafter, by committing fraud, documents have been manufactured to show transfer of property by Ramphal in favour of Govind Sahai, son of Harkesh, by way of sale deed registered on March 06, 1969. Allegations are that the sale deed was never executed in 1969 and that it was prepared in 2017. The basis of such assertion is that in the event such a sale deed existed then mutation entries as per it ought to have been made then itself.

It is also alleged that stamp papers which have been used for registration of sale deed were not issued to Ramphal or Govind Sahai and that the actual area shown in the sale deed is at variance with the plot numbers mentioned therein.

On the strength of such facts, it has been alleged that the sale deed registered on March 6, 1969 since is fraudulently prepared and the beneficiaries are trying to enter into possession, therefore, the informant/petitioner be protected.

Also Read: FCRA: Delhi High Court dismisses plea against suspension of registration certificate

Apprehensions with regard to threat to the informant /petitioner’s life are also expressed in the FIR. With such allegations, the FIR got registered on March 19, 2018.

Grievance of the petitioner is that fair investigation is not being made in the matter and consequently investigation be transferred to CBI or CBCID.

The Court observed that the informant/petitioner Ram Kishan alongwith 9 others have also instituted Original Suit before the Civil Judge (JD), Gautam Budh Nagar in which the facts noticed in the FIR have been mentioned and a declaration has been sought to the effect that the sale deed in question dated March 6, 1969 be declared null and void and a prayer has also been made to grant permanent injunction against the defendants in the aforesaid suit. The defendants in the aforesaid suit are the persons accused in the FIR.

A counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition by the State in which it is stated that investigation was carried out in the aforesaid FIR and as the dispute was pending before the revenue authorities as such a final report was submitted in the matter on June 13, 2019.

The Court noted that a protest petition was filed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate order dated January 04, 2021 directed for further investigation in the matter. Further investigation has been carried out and agreeing with the previous closure report a final report has again been submitted on May 14, 2021. The Circle Officer before whom the final report was placed directed investigation to be made on three points. The Investigating Officer in light of the order of the Circle Officer has conducted further investigation and yet again submitted the final report on September 20, 2021.

The Court further noted that the competent court is seized of the matter. It is at this stage that the writ petition has been filed and it is pressed on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation be transferred to CBI or CBCID as fair investigation has not been conducted.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs SP Jaunpur to ensure impartial probe into theft of cash, jewellery

When the matter was taken up and the Court was apprised of the status in the matter, the Court opined that since the matter in issue is already engaging attention of the competent civil court there is no reason to consider the prayer made in this petition as the investigation has already concluded and the Magistrate would be competent to examine the police report but the counsel for petitioner insists for a decision on merits from us in the matter.

The Court have carefully examined the materials brought on record and from a perusal whereof the court found that the sale deed dated March 06, 1969 is registered in the office of concerned Sub Registrar. It is, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that in the event such sale deed already existed it ought to have been given effect to in the revenue records and the subsequent claim of parties based on inheritance, without referring to the sale deed, conclusively establishes that the sale deed is a result of manipulation and fraud.

The Court held,

“We are not inclined to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. First and foremost, the fact that the sale deed was not given effect in revenue records or that the claim in respect of property was independently raised by the accused persons would not lead to an inevitable conclusion that the sale deed itself was never executed in 1969. Possibility of justifiable reasons existing for non recording of names in terms of the sale deed cannot be ruled out. There would otherwise be presumption in law with regard to valid execution of the sale deed in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1908. Such presumption can be dislodged by one who disputes it by leading cogent evidence before the competent civil court.”

“The petitioner/informant is aware of the legal position in that regard and has already instituted suit for necessary declaration with regard to invalidity of sale deed dated March 06, 1969. The suit is pending consideration and the contentions raised before us are exactly the issues to be examined by the civil court on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties.”

The Court said that the question that requires determination in such circumstances in the petition is as to whether the Court would be justified in coming to a conclusion that investigation is faulty, and to direct the investigation to be transferred to CBI or CBCID, for the reasons set out in the writ petition?

Whether on facts such presumption is dislodged would require evidence to be led by the plaintiff petitioner before the appropriate civil court.

Also read: Delhi High Court acquits three persons in gangrape case of 2012

The Court further held that the matter is already pending before the civil court and we would not be justified in embarking upon a factual enquiry, as is sought to be insisted by the petitioner in a petition filed for transfer of investigation. This is particularly so as the investigation is concluded and a final report has been submitted. Law otherwise recognises the right of the informant/petitioner to file a protest petition which is required to be considered by the competent court.

The civil court is already seized of the matter; there is hardly any scope for this Court to enter into a detailed analysis of facts so as to come to a conclusion that submission of final report in the facts of the case depicts failure on part of the investigation authority to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.

The Court of the view that as investigation has already been concluded and the matter is pending before the concerned Magistrate, for acceptance of closure report, there would be no occasion for us to direct transference of investigation to any other agency, particularly when factual issues are yet to be determined by the appropriate court. We refrain ourselves from stating any further as it may otherwise impinge upon the rights available in law to the person aggrieved.

The Court clarified that none of our observations in this judgment shall be construed as expression of opinion on the matter in issues and the competent courts are at liberty to proceed on merits and in accordance with law.

“The Writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs 50,000 to be deposited by the petitioner with District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, who shall remit the same to the District Legal Services Authority, Bulandshahr,”

-the Court ordered.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update