Allahabad High Court
Ram Dev Singh And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 31 October, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3354 of 2007 Applicant :- Ram Dev Singh And 2 Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- I.B.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Ayodhya Prasad Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed impugning the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gonda in Criminal Revision No.243 of 2000, which was preferred by the respondent no.2 against the order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Crime No.446 of 1999 whereby he discharged the petitioners/accused under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
An FIR under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 511 IPC came to be registered against the accused as Case No.97 of 1983 alleging that the complainant's husband Ram Bahadur Singh died on 20.3.1983. On 31.3.1983 the accused tried to get registered a forged Will of Ram Bahadur Singh, but they could not succeed. On suspicion that the accused were registering the forged Will of late Ram Bahadur Singh by impersonation, the police reached at the office of the Sub-Registrar and apprehended the accused while other accused manage to flee. The police after investigation, filed the charge sheet and the petitioners stood trial. However, the trial court vide judgement and oder dated 10.1.1996 passed in Case No.1575 of 1993 acquitted the accused. A revision was filed against the acquittal by the complainant. However, later on, she entered into compromise with the accused and withdrew the revision petition.
It appears that the petitioners filed an application for mutation of the land of Ram Bahadur Singh in their name on the basis of the forged Will. The complainant, therefore, filed subsequent compliant alleging that after the acquittal of the accused, as well as compromise, which was entered into between the parties, they got the forged Will registered and on that basis they applied for mutation of the land of her husband Ram Bahadur Singh. However, from the facts, it appears that the said mutation application was later on withdrawn and, the complainant did not suffer any loss.
The petitioners were summoned by the learned Magistrate under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The petitioners against the said summoning order, filed revision petition being revision No.71 of 1997. The aforesaid revision was allowed and, the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate giving liberty to the petitioners to file their objection taking all pleas against the summoning order.
On remand, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 10.8.2000 whereby the learned Magistrate had discharged the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.8.2000, the complainant filed revision petition and, the said revision has been allowed vie impugned order dated 30.8.2007 and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Magistrate directing the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate.
Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same offence once the petitioners were acquitted in the trial, no complaint was maintainable for the same offence and, it was barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C. He further submits that power of the revisional court is very limited. The revisional court is required to see whether the order passed by the subordinate court is in accordance with law or the subordinate court exceeded its jurisdiction. The impugned order has been passed allowing the revision inasmuch as the revisional court has held that the learned Magistrate had re-visited his order summoning the accused petitioners. From perusal of the order, it is evident that the learned Magistrate had discharged the accused for the offence alleged to have been committed by them for which they were summoned. He further submits that Section 245 Cr.P.C. empowers the learned Magistrate to discharge the accused at any point of time, which power had been exercised by the learned Magistrate by discharging the accused. He also submits that the petitioners have not acted upon the forged Will to get the property mutated in their name and, they would not claim in future any right, title or interest on the basis of the alleged forged Will over the estate of deceased Ram Bahadur Singh.
Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and, therefore, there is no argument advanced on behalf of the complainant.
Sri Anurag Varma, learned AGA submits that from perusal of the order, it is evident that the compliant was filed for subsequent acts of the petitioners inasmuch as according to the allegations, the petitioners after they got acquitted by the trial court, got forged Will registered and, on that basis they filed an application for mutation of the land of late Ram Bahadur Singh in their names. He further submits that the allegations in the complaint, in which the petitioners were summoned, were not the same for which the petitioners acquitted earlier in the trial. He, therefore, submits that the ground taken by the petitioners that the subsequent compliant was barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C. is not tenable. Further, the learned trial court had discharged the petitioners on wholly untenable ground inasmuch as learned trial court had held that the complaint was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. as the mutation application on the basis of the alleged forged Will was filed in the court of Tehsildar and the Tehsildar was competent to initiate the proceedings and, therefore, the complaint could not have been maintained. He further submits that the allegations in the complaint were that the petitioners got the forged Will registered and on that basis they moved an application for mutation. Therefore, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the complaint was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. is wholly untenable.
I have considered the submissions of the parties carefully and perused the record.
From the record, it is evident that the petitioners later on withdrew the mutation proceedings and, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners had got the Will registered as alleged in the complaint.No document along with the compliant was filed showing the registration of the forged Will after they were acquitted by the trial court.
Be that as it may, without entering into the controversy involved in this petition, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are relegated back to face the proceedings before the learned Magistrate inasmuch as the complainant is not interesting in prosecuting the case. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioners have withdrawn the mutation proceedings, which they have initiated in 1997. 22 years have gone by since the initiation of the mutation proceedings, which stood withdrawn at later point of time. At this distant point of time, the parties would have settled their right, title and interest over the land and, no purpose would be served by sending back the petitioners to face the proceedings before the learned Magistrate.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and, the impugned order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gonda in Revision No.243 of 2000 is set aside.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Rao/-