Allahabad High Court
Swami Nityanand vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 July, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25054 of 2019 Applicant :- Swami Nityanand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Dharm Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the charge sheet dated 12.05.2019 and the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1176 of 2019 (State vs. Swami Nityanand), arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2019, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Sumerpur, District- Hamirpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, and a prayer is also made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of the present application.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the property in dispute, is stated by opposite party no. 2 to have been sold unauthorisedly by the accused-applicant and in this regard he has drawn attention to the documents in evidence that the disputed property belonged to one Jamuniya, who executed an unregistered Will on 08.04.1995 in favour of the accused-applicant, whereafter he established an institution by the name Thadeshwari Ashram and got it registered vide registration, documents of registration are at Page No. 18 of paper-book. He has also drawn attention to a report of Tahsildar, Hamirpur in this regard which is at Page No. 25 of the paper-book, in which it has been reported that on the said property the accused-applicant's name is registered and there was no dispute with respect to the allotment of the said institution. He has also drawn attention to the ownership of the said land which belonged to Jamuniya by drawing attention to the Khatauni of 1423 fasali and 1426 fasali, which are at Page No. 37 of the paper-book, in which the name of Jamuniya was recorded as its owner and after her death and execution of the Will, the said property had devolved on the accused-applicant and he has shown the entry of his name in Khasra, which is annexed at Page No. 39 of the paper-book. He has further drawn attention to one report of the Lekhpal dated 23.03.2019, in which also, it is recorded that after the enquiry the name of the accused-applicant was properly registered on the disputed property and in Parivar Register also, with respect to the said property, the name of accused-applicant was recorded and he was found to be in possession thereof. He has also drawn attention to one civil suit, O.S. No. 92 of 2019 filed by accused-applicant against the opposite party no.2 for injunction over the said property, in which notice has been issued. Another suit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 against applicant, which is Suit No. 35 of 2019, praying therein for cancellation of the sale deeds, which are stated by the opposite party no. 2 to have been falsely executed by accused-applicant. Therefore, he has argued that because the matter is subjudice before the civil court, hence it cannot be held at this stage that prima facie, the accused-applicant has committed any offence under the above mentioned sections and charge-sheet needs to be quashed.
On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the accused-applicant is a hardened criminal. Earlier F.I.R. No. 0076 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 408 I.P.C. was registered against him, in which he has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15631 of 2019, which was dismissed with liberty to appear before the trial court and apply for bail. He has also stated that Jamuniya from whom the accused-applicant is deriving title to the disputed property, had died in the year 1960 and therefore the unregistered Will on the basis of which, the accused-applicant is claiming title is found false by the police after investigation and therefore, the subsequent transactions which have been made would stand nullified and the Will would be held to be executed with mala fide intention. It is also argued that the sale deeds which have been executed were executed immediately after one month of the registration of the said institution and that too in favour of some members of the society registered.
After having gone through the record as well as the having heard the arguments from both sides, I am of the view that the quashing of the charge-sheet should be refused, pieces of evidence which have been gathered by the Investigating Officer, cannot be looked into in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whatever arguments have been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant, may be raised before the trial court and seek discharge, if so advised.
The trial court is directed to decide the discharge application within 30 days from the date when it is moved before it. If such an application is moved by the applicant within a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused-applicant in the aforesaid case. However, in case the discharge application is not moved within the said period or the same is rejected on merit within the aforesaid period, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.7.2019 V.S.Singh