Uttarakhand High Court
Navnath Tiwari And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 January, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 97
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2017
Prem Prakash Singh .............Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
With
Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2017
Navnath Tiwari and another .............Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another .........Respondents
With
Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2017
Smt. Manju Lata Singh .............Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another .........Respondents
With
Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2017
Smt. Nidhi Singh .............Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another .........Respondents
With
Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2017
Shivwardhan Singh .............Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Present : Mr. Arvind Vashishta, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State.
Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocates for the
complainant.
2
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
All these criminal revisions are against the common judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application moved by the accused persons (different revisionists before this Court) under Section 239 of CrPC for their discharge has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by one Smt. Prabhawati against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/504 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar stating therein that her father late Ram Avadh Singh was a freedom fighter and retired from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uttar Pradesh and was given 50 acres of agricultural land under the Government Grant Act. She is the only issue of her father. Her father passed away on 10.06.1999 and thereafter various anti-social elements tried to grab the property of her late father. The complainant is an old widow and inter alia is looking after her ancestral property. The accused and one of the revisionist before this Court is an MLA and former Minister, namely, Prem Prakash Singh, S/o Shri Keshav Nath Singh, resident of Village Shakti Farm who is alleged to have grabbed the property of the complainant by conspiracy. There are other allegations as well. It has further been stated that under the conspiracy her son Late Anand Singh was continuously threatened. It has further come in the first information report that Prem Prakash Singh, referred above, prepared a forged and fabricated Will, in which the testator has been shown to 3 be her father Late Ram Avadh Singh and the beneficiaries are, inter alia, herself i.e. Smt. Prabhavati Devi, Indu Singh and Maa Shakti Peeth Trust, of which Prem Prakash Singh is the chairman. The first information report was challenged by the revisionists before this Court by means of criminal writ petitions, which were dismissed as infructuous. Subsequently, revisionists filed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court challenging the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case which was also dismissed by this Court as the Court did not find any merit in interfering with the matter, though liberty was granted to the revisionists to take all the factual pleas before the court below for their discharge at an appropriate stage.
3. On the strength of the evidence, which was placed by the prosecution before the learned Magistrate where the learned Magistrate was to formally frame charges under Section 240 of CrPC, an application was moved before the learned Magistrate under Section 239 of CrPC for discharge, in which a detailed order has been passed rejecting the application for discharge moved by the revisionists. This order has been challenged before this Court.
4. The principal argument of the revisionists before this Court is that at the root lies the veracity of a Will which was produced by none other than but by the complainant in the consolidation proceedings and on the basis of the Will produced by the complainant, orders have already been passed in the consolidation 4 proceedings way back in the year 2004 and these proceedings have now come to an end.
5. The complainant, on the other hand, alleges that there is no such Will executed on 10.05.1999 and the Will, if any, which was produced, is a forged and fabricated Will. Moreover, it was not produced by her but someone other impersonating as her. Since the contention of the revisionists before this Court is that the complainant had actually filed a Will before the consolidation proceedings, this Court in order to get to the truth of the matter had summoned the lower court records. The records of the consolidation proceedings have been placed before this Court. The Consolidation Officer, Kichha - Ms. Kishori Kotiyal is also present in person before this Court. The records were produced before this Court in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened. Both the learned counsel for the revisionists and learned counsel for the respondents were given liberty to examine the documents. They have examined the documents. The Will is not part of the record. The records were kept back in a sealed cover in their presence and the same is returned to the Consolidation Officer in a sealed cover.
6. This Court has examined the records but the original Will is nowhere on record. Although learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists would argue that it is the case of the prosecution itself that after the filing of the Will, the complainant had taken the Will back. The main contention in the first information report, however, rests on the contention of the complainant that the revisionists have either committed a forgery or have 5 conspired to commit a forgery including cheating, impersonation, etc. There is clearly an allegation of fraud as well. After investigation, on the strength of the evidence collected by the prosecution and when the matter came up before the learned Magistrate and then an application was moved for discharge under Section 239 of CrPC by the accused persons/revisionists, which has been rejected as it has already been referred above. This order has been challenged by the revisionists in the present revisions before this Court. All the revisionists are presently on bail.
7. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists Mr. Arvind Vashishta is that no prosecution could have been launched on the strength of the evidence which has been raised by the prosecution. The Will which is said to be forged and fabricated was produced in a competent court (in Consolidation proceedings), by the complainant herself. She is also one of the beneficiaries of the Will. Not only this, on the strength of the Will, a certain part of the property is also passed on the complainant and therefore, it is now not open for her to allege fraud, cheating etc. The entire case of the prosecution is, therefore, baseless and it is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
8. Learned Government Advocate Sri G.S. Sandhu as well as the learned counsel for the complainant Sri Anurag Bisaria, on the other hand, would argue that it is the case of the complainant that she has never produced the Will before the competent court and somebody impersonated as Prabhawati Devi and Indu Singh and presented the Will and got an order 6 from the Consolidation Officer and once these facts were realized, criminal machinery under law has been invoked. They have also argued that fraud vitiates everything and it is first and foremost a case of fraud. Therefore, the order passed in the consolidation proceedings will be of no help to the accused persons in this case.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon certain question answers which were put to the concerned Consolidation Officer wherein a specific question was put as to whether the complainant was identified when she had placed the Will before the Court and the answer of the Consolidation Officer was that she has been identified by her Counsel.
10. On this, the learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant says that it is incorrect and on this statement no mileage can be given to the revisionists, as at an appropriate stage they would be at liberty to move an application under Section 319 of CrPC for bringing other accused persons in accordance with law.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. It was only the stage of discharge before the trial court. All the court has to examine was whether a trial can actually proceed on the strength of the evidence which were there before the court. The evidence has not to be evaluated in detail nor arguments have to be heard at this stage. On the validity of the evidence or on the strength of the evidence, all the court has to see is 7 whether a criminal trial can continue or not. The first and foremost purpose of the Court in a trial is to reach to the truth of the matter. The order dated 27.03.2017 is a detailed order which has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, where a categorical finding has come that there is enough evidence placed by the prosecution for the trial to continue.
13. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for by this Court in the matter.
14. Consequently, the criminal revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
15. However, considering the nature of the case and the plea made by the parties, it is directed that the trial shall continue as a continuous trial preferably on a day-to-day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.01.2018 Ankit