Gopal Goenka vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present C528 application, applicant seeks quashing of the order dated 01.08.2026 passed in CBI Case No.10 of 2024, CBI vs. Mohd. Ahsan & others, under Sections 120-B r/w Section 420, 447, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, by the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, whereby the discharge application has been rejected, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

The facts in brief are that in the present case in hand the case pertains to Khasra Nos.436 Ga and 436 Ja, situated at Village Johari, District Dehradun. The original area of Khasra No.436 Ga was 0.244 hectares, whereas the original area of Khasra No. 436 Ja was 0.489 hectares. The allegation against the applicant is that he conspired with other persons to increase the area of the aforesaid lands in question. As per the material collected during investigation by the local police , CBCID and then finally CBI, it transpired that the area of Khasra No. 436 Ga was subsequently shown as 1.244 hectares, whereas the area of Khasra No. B 436 Ja was shown as 1.489 hectares. It is alleged that in the year 2001, Powers of Attorney were executed by the original owners in respect of the aforesaid properties. On the strength of the said Powers of Attorney, 11 sale deeds were executed between March, 2001 and June, 2001, whereby Khasra No. 436 Ga was transferred to the applicant and Khasra No. 436 Ja was transferred to the applicant's wife, Smt. Ranjana Goenka.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant at the very outset submits that the case set up by CBI is beyond logic and common prudence inasmuch as why the buyer i.e. the applicant will conspire with seller and Tehsil authorities to manipulate the revenue records. He argues that the FSL Report establishes that the Khasra for Fasli Varsh 1406 (1998), was prepared by Sh. Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal of village Johri, in which he correctly recorded the area as 0.244 and 0.489 hectares, without any manipulation and that thereafter the Khasra for Fasli Varsh 1407 (1999) and 1408 (2000),was also originally prepared by the same Lekhpal, in which he manipulated the said land records to inflate the area to 1.244 and 1.489 hectares. He further submits that in spite of the fact that there is no expert opinion on the authorship of the forgery, the CBI has itself concluded, on the basis of custody of the original land records, that the forgery was carried out by Sh. Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal, who also submitted false Khatauni extracts with his Lekhpal Reports in the mutation proceedings.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the alleged manipulation of the original revenue records had already taken place before the applicant entered into the transaction in the year 2001. He vehemently argues that the prosecution material itself attributes the manipulation of the original Bandobasti Jild, Khatauni and Khasra records to Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal of Village Johari. Thereafter, the sale deeds were presented before the Tehsil authorities for mutation. He further apprises the Court that the mutation proceedings in respect of 08 sale deeds were undertaken in the year 2001, whereas mutation in respect of the remaining 03 sale deeds was undertaken in the year 2003. He argues that the prosecution material itself records the role of the concerned Lekhpals in submitting reports and extracts of Khatauni showing the increased area of land.

He further argues that the subsequent buyer from the applicant, namely Sudhir Windlass and others, have themselves been exonerated by the CBI, and no question of conspiracy with the revenue officials arises for a buyer in the same position applicant, who too was not even a resident of Dehradun on the date the manipulations were carried out.

He also argued that during the same period, the SIT (Lands) was constituted by the District Magistrate which carried out an enquiry and concluded that it was the sellers, i.e., Mohd. Ahsan and others along with the revenue officials who carried out the manipulations. He argues that this conclusion has been completely brushed aside by the learned Special Judge, CBI. He submits that the learned Special Judge, CBI has mainly relied upon the multiple sale deeds and the mere reference to common pay orders across them to conclude that the applicant is involved in the commission of the offence, without appreciating that these are not part of the substantial allegations. He argues that the substantial allegation is manipulation of the revenue record, for which particular persons, i.e. Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal, stands identified on the basis of the FSL Report. He further submits that no independent application of mind has been shown by the learned Special Judge, CBI, and the impugned order dated 01.08.2026 is erroneous and unsustainable in law, the reasons assigned therein do not satisfy the principles applicable at the stage of discharge/framing of charge, and no prima facie case under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 447, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is made out against the applicant.

Learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS. He submits that it is well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge/discharge, the Court is required to examine only whether a prima facie case and grave suspicion exist against the accused and a roving or exhaustive enquiry into the merits, credibility or sufficiency of evidence, or a mini-trial, is neither permissible nor warranted, and the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at this stage.

He vehemently submits that the investigation conducted by the CBI has, on the strength of documentary and forensic evidence, conclusively established that the area of land comprised in Khasra No. 436 Ga (originally 0.244 hectares) and Khasra No. 436 Ja (originally 0.489 hectares), Village Johari, District Dehradun, was fraudulently increased to 1.244 hectares and 1.489 hectares respectively, through manipulation of the revenue records by the then Lekhpal, Sh. Hira Singh Bisht, after preparation of the Khasra for Fasli Varsh 1408 (August 2000) and before mutation of the said land in favour of the Applicant and his wife, Smt. Ranjana Goenka, in the year 2001.He further submits that the Applicant is not a bona fide third-party purchaser standing outside the chain of manipulation, as sought to be projected in the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. He argues that the investigation has revealed that the family of Mohd. Ahsan(original owner) executed two Powers of Attorney in the year 2001 in respect of Khasra Nos. 436 Ga and 436 Ja, deliberately omitting mention of the area of land, in favour of Sh. Hari Nagar and the applicant respectively and on the strength of the Power of Attorney executed in his own favour, the applicant himself executed 05 of the 11 impugned sale deeds (in favour of his wife, Smt. Ranjana Goenka) in respect of Khasra No. 436 Ja, in which the area was inflated from 0.489 to 1.489 hectares. The applicant is, therefore, not merely a purchaser relying on revenue entries, but himself the executant of the very documents through which the fraud was perpetrated.

Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI further argues that the submission raised on behalf of the applicant that the manipulation of records for Fasli Varsh 1407-1408 (1999-2000) necessarily predates and is therefore disconnected from his purchase in 2001 is misconceived and does not assist the applicant at the discharge stage. The CBI's investigation, based on the FSL report and the custody trail of the original land records, has specifically found that the manipulation was carried out after preparation of the Fasli 1408 Khasra (August 2000) and before the mutation orders of 2001 i.e., within the very window during which the Powers of Attorney and sale deeds relied upon by the applicant were executed. Whether the manipulation was in fact carried out in furtherance of a conspiracy to which the applicant was party is a matter of evidence to be tested at trial, and cannot be foreclosed by an assertion of the applicant at the discharge stage.

He further submits that the reliance placed by the applicant on the exoneration of the subsequent purchasers, the Windlass family, is misplaced and does not advance his case as the investigation has found no association between the Windlass family and the applicant, Sh. Hari Nagar or Mohd. Ahsan during the year 2001, when the manipulation and the impugned sale deeds came into existence. The applicant, by contrast, is directly implicated as an executant of the Power of Attorney-based sale deeds during the very period of manipulation, and stands on an entirely different footing from a subsequent, unconnected purchaser in 2005. He further submits that the learned Special Judge, CBI, while passing the impugned order dated 01.08.2026, has taken into consideration the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI, the material collected during investigation and the detailed written objections filed on behalf of the CBI, and has thereafter arrived at a considered finding that a prima facie case exists against the applicant and therefore no illegality, non-application of mind or perversity is made out in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet, impugned order rejecting the discharge application and entire material available on record. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima-facie made out a case against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial. Moreover the argument that a buyer will not manipulate or will not conspire to manipulate the alleged land records has some logical gaps as the buyer will be the direct beneficiary of the manipulation more so when the manipulation involves increasing the land size of the property. Moreover as the alleged sale deed to transfer the disputed piece of land was executed in the favour of the applicant and his wife it raises prima- facie suspicion against the applicant. The argument regarding parity with the subsequent buyer i.e. Sudhir Windlass also does not hold any water as the role of applicant and the subsequent buyer i.e. Sudhir Windlass is entirely different. In a catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:-

Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub-paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:-

After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant was summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

Accordingly, the C528 application is dismissed.