Pyare Ram vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Pyare Ram who is an accused in the trial Court with the prayer that the impugned order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No.8 of 1999 Smt. Parwati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, be quashed as the entire proceeding initiated against him is abuse of the process of the Court.

It appears that the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 10.6.1999 (Complaint Case No.1029 of 1998 Smt. Parwati Devi Vs. Pyare Ram and another under Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Syyed Raja, District Chandauli), filed by Smt. Parwati Devi, opposite party no.2 herein u/s 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that no prima facie case against the accused persons appears to be made out as genuineness of the sale deed in question can be decided by the Civil Court in civil suit and affidavit filed in the court of the Naib Tehsildar seeking mutation on the basis of the said sale deed, was filed by Smt. Parwati Devi or by some impostor, was also to be decided after expert opinion.

The complainant Smt. Parwati Devi filed the complaint in the trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli, on 3.9.1998 with the allegations that the disputed land namely Khasra No.21 measuring area 62-1/2 acres situated in village Ramaupur, Police Station Syyed Raza, District Chandauli, was in the ownership of her father Birjoo. Her father Birjoo executed the sale deed of the land on 26.6.1998 in favour of the accused persons namely Pyare Ram and Manoj Kumar though he was not legally authorized to sell the said land. The purchasers of the land/accused persons filed the case for mutation of the said land in their favour on the basis of the sale deed in the Court of the Naib Tehsildar, Syyed Raja, District Chandauli.

It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons produced/ set up some woman in place of the complainant on 12.8.1998 in the Court of Naib Tehsildar and filed a fake affidavit of her along with the application mentioning no objection to the mutation of the purchasers'' name in the revenue record. The complainant denied her signature and thumb impression on the application as well as affidavit filed in her name by some impostor set up by the accused persons.

The complainant Smt. Parwati Devi examined herself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and also got the statements of witnesses namely Jhinguri and Rajnath as PW-1 and PW-2 recorded. The learned Magistrate after going through the statements and material on record, dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. as stated above vide order dated 10.6.1999.

The complainant Smt. Parwati Devi challenged the order dated 10.6.1999 passed by the Magistrate by way of filing Criminal Revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chandauli, which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli, vide judgment and order dated 15.11.1999 quashing the impugned order dated 10.6.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and remanding the matter to the Magistrate to consider it in the light of the observation made in the judgment and order of the revisional Court so as to find out whether prima facie case against the accused persons is made out or not. The complainant was directed to appear before the trial Court on 29.11.1999.

It is the impugned order dated 15.11.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Chandauli, which is under challenge in the instant application filed by one of the accused Pyare Ram

The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that when the accused persons sought mutation of their names on the basis of the said sale deed u/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in the Court of the Naib Tehsildar, Chandauli, in Mutation Case No.347 of 1998, Pyare Ram Vs. Birjoo, executant of the sale deed/seller had not filed any objections nor opposed the mutation of the names of purchasers and Birjoo had also not challenged the sale deed executed by him. It was Smt. Parwati Devi, daughter of the executant Birjoo (complainant in the trial Court) filed objections against mutation on the ground that no consideration of the sale deed was paid to her father. The learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 10.6.1999 with the finding that no prima facie case under Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC was made out against the accused persons but the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, illegally quashed the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and remanded the matter to the Magistrate.

The second submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. since the main offence is in respect of filing of affidavit by any person in the Court of the Naib Tehsildar in mutation case, therefore, the complaint filed by Smt. Parwati Devi was not maintainable.

Learned AGA opposing the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge did not record any finding in favour of either parties but passed a detailed and well reasoned impugned order 15.11.1999 simply quashing the order passed by the Magistrate and sending the matter back to the Magistrate concerned to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment and order of the revisional Court and decide whether prima facie offences against the accused persons under the aforesaid Sections

The applicant cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge because the learned Sessions Judge did not record any finding but he simply quashed the order dated 10.6.1999 passed by the Magistrate and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to find out whether any prima facie offence is made out against the accused persons including the applicant or not. The learned Magistrate is yet to apply his mind to the facts and evidence of the case and decide it keeping in view the observations made by the Sessions Judge in its judgment and the order dated 15.11.1999 and that stage has not reached till date because of the interim order dated 10.12.1999 granted by this Court staying operation of the judgment and order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli. It is open for the applicant to raise all these points before the Magistrate, who is yet to apply his mind to those points and decide the matter.

In view of the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits is dismissed. Interim order dated 10.12.1999 granted by this Court staying operation of the order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in Criminal Revision No.8 of 1999, stands vacated.

The Magistrate concerned is directed to proceed with the case on priority basis and decide it expeditiously without any further delay.