AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 Lok Pal Singh, J
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report dated 03.12.2017 registered as FIR No. 0446 of 2017 lodged under
Sections 420, 467, 470, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar and also order dated 28.11.207 passed by Judicial
Magistrate/ Civil Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 330 of 2017 as “M/s Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Panna VInay
Shah and Otherâ€, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed to lodge the FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 lodged First Information Report before the Magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.C., as the FIR was not lodged by the Police concerned despite the complaint made to the Police, then respondent No. 4 made that application
and after inviting the report from the Police Station. The Magistrate directed to lodge the FIR by order dated 28.11.2017.Â
It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 4 that an order passed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. has already been executed,
therefore, things which has been done, cannot be undone by setting aside the order dated 28.11.2017.Â
I found force in the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Thus, it is held that writ petition is not maintainable for quashing the order
dated 03.12.2017 as the FIR has already been lodged. It is also contended in the FIR that the property in dispute belongs to respondent no. 4. The
father of petitioner no. 2, late Jeevan Lal was working in the Management Board of respondent No.4 company. The name of the company was
recorded in the revenue records. Ceiling proceedings were initiated, the property released in favour of respondent no. 4, but the petitioner No. 2 has
executed the MOU in favour of petitioner no.1. It is mentioned in the MOU that the land which was originally owned by Late Jeevan Lal, inherited by
Smt. Sarla Ben after the demise of Late Jeevan Lal.Â
It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that this MOU has been executed between the petitioners to grab the property
belongs to the respondent no.4. The petitioner no. 2 has received a consideration of Rs. 1,01,11,111/- (Rupees One Crore One Lac Eleven Thousand
One Hundred and Eleven Only). It is mentioned in the MOU that petitioner No. 1 shall do needful for mutation of the property in the name of
petitioner no. 1. It appears that this MOU has been drafted to grab the property under the influence of petitioner No. 1.Â
Since, petitioners have fabricated the MOU to grab the property belongs to the respondent No.4, the subject matter is to be investigated by the
Investigating Officer concerned. Nowadays, the false agreements MoU are being prepared in favour of land mafias so by exercising their muscle
powers and to influence the authorities they may succeed to fabricate the documents and on the basis of manufactured documents, they entered into
possession of property by using their muscle powers and to compel the other side to come on the table for compromise. So, they may earn money by
extending the influence on poor people. Since the fabricated MoU has been prepared, the petitioners are not entitled for any protection from this
Court.  I found no merit in the writ petition. The present writ petition is dismissed and also stay application stands dismissed. Â