AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
By means of the anticipatory bail application, applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.826 of 2019, Manohar Lal vs. Satyapal & others, under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 120B IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/6th Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun, District Dehradun.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging that the present applicant, along with two other individuals, committed fraud in relation to immovable property located at Khasra Nos. 2163 and 2164 in Raipur, Dehradun. It is alleged that on 06.05.2013, the accused parties executed and registered a sale deed by forging the identity of co-accused Kishan Lal. The purpose of this alleged impersonation was to illegally transfer ownership of the said property and thereby earn illicit profit.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant criminal proceedings. It is contended that the applicant was merely a witness to the alleged sale deed dated 06.05.2013, and not a party to the execution or registration of the same. Furthermore, it is argued that the entire dispute is essentially of a civil nature, pertaining to property rights and ownership, which has been maliciously given a criminal colour to harass the applicant. He also submits that no cogent evidence is available on record to substantiate the allegations of forgery or impersonation against the applicant, and hence, the invocation of criminal law in this matter is misuse of the legal process.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the offences alleged involve serious charges of impersonation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC. The alleged act of registering a sale deed by impersonating another person is a grave offence affecting public faith in official records and property transactions. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was merely a witness is a matter of trial, and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail at this juncture may hamper proper investigation, especially in a case involving a conspiracy and forgery of documents.
In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie involvement of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly.