AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—All these petitions arise out from the common order of cognizance dated 13.11.2006, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.4688 of 2006, State Vs. Ram Kishan Verma and others, so those are being disposed of by this single verdict.
Having heard the learned counsel of all the petitioners and that of respondent no.2-Smt. Pammi Verma, nay learned brief holder for the State, the entire controversy, behind the scenario of the alleged crime, revolves around the ownership of house no.137 situated in Avas Vikas Colony, Ranipur, Haridwar. The said house was originally owned by one Arjun Singh, the husband of respondent no.2. The whereabouts of Arjun Singh were missing since 6.6.1988, as is reflected from the report lodged by Ram Chandra Verma (father of Arjun Singh) in P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar. Arjun Singh remained missing for a long time, so it is alleged that his wife Smt. Pammi Verma was not permitted to inherit the house, left by Arjun Singh, and having a evil eye upon the legacy of Arjun Singh by brother Ram Chander Verma, she was forced to leave the town Haridwar for her native place, somewhere in Punjab. When Smt. Pammi Verma came to know that the house, owned by her husband, has been got mutated by Ram Kishan Verma S/o Ram Chandra Verma (brother in law of Smt. Pammi) as well as Smt. Usha Verma (wife of Ram Kishan Verma), then she tried to lodge the FIR for all the mischief, allegedly committed by above two named accused persons, with the connivance, collusion and the succour, actively rendered by the officials of Awas Vikas Parishad, namely, Subhash Chand Saini and Ashok Kumar Saxena as well as Ramesh Kumar Gaur. The FIR could be lodged only by the intervention of the Court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons Ram Kishan Verma, Smt. Usha Verma, Subhash Chandra Sahni, Ashok Kumar Saxena and Ramesh Kumar Gaur for the offence of Sections 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, bearing crime no.358 of 2006 in Police Station Jwalapur. The matter was investigated, which resulted into the submission of the chargesheet no.364/2006 on 2.11.2006. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of said chargesheet, took cognizance of the matter on 13.11.2006, which is the subject matter of challenge in these petitions.
It has been argued on behalf of petitioners that Ram Chandra Verma (father of Arjun Singh) lodged a report on 8.6.1988 regarding the missing of his son since 6.6.1988. It was further argued that an original suit no.35/2002 was also instituted by Smt. Vidyawati after the death of her husband Ram Chandra Verma, making only U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad as defendant, seeking a declaratory decree that Arjun Singh is missing since 6.6.1988 and that the said suit was decreed on 25.11.2002. The attention of this Court was also drawn towards a letter issued by A.D.M. Haridwar certifying that except Smt. Vidyawati, aged about 75 years, no other member in the family of Arjun Singh could be verified. It was further argued that Smt. Vidyawati got executed a fresh sale deed from Awas Vikas Parishad on 23.4.2003 regarding the same house no.137 and on the strength of this sale deed, she executed a registered will in favour of her son Ram Kishan Verma and daughter-in-law Smt. Usha Verma on dated 4.2.2005 at Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Thus, the said house was got mutated by Ram Kishan Verma and Smt. Usha Verma in their name as owners.
On the other hand, it has been highlighted by learned counsel of Smt. Pammi Verma that the voter list of 1988 (copy of the same issued on 2.1.2003) adverts the name of Pammi Verma as wife of Arjun Singh and the report of Tehsildar, based on the intense enquiry conducted by Lekhpal, also shows that Arjun Singh S/o Ram Chandra Verma had one wife and children too, who had left Haridwar a considerable time back.
Smt. Pammi Verma, in her counter affidavit sworn on 11.4.2007, has deposed in paragraph 5 that her son and daughter were studying in Mahant Tulsi Dass Charan Dass Trust, Kanya Junior High School, Bada Jogi Wala, Haridwar and in the school, their father?s name was mentioned as Arjun Singh.
Leaving of Haridwar by Smt. Pammi Verma, along with her three children, was not unusual after the missing of her husband for a considerable time, particularly in the circumstances, when Ram Kishan Verma and Smt. Usha Verma were bent upon to see her ouster from Haridwar, in order to grab the house no.137, left by her husband. So, it was quite natural for Smt. Pammi Verma to move to her parents? house in the above circumstances.
Further, when the house was owned by Arjun Singh, who was the son of Smt. Vidyawati, then what motivated Smt. Vidyawati to get another sale deed of the same house, executed in her favour, and it is appalling that how the Awas Vikas Parishad could execute this sale deed in favour of Smt. Vidyawati. This all is enough to reveal their active involvement to fulfill the ill motives, not only of Smt. Vidyawati, but that of Ram Kishan Verma and Smt. Usha Verma, who are the real beneficiaries of this crime.
It has also been argued on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Gaur, Subhash Chandra Saini and Ashok Kumar Saxena that they are the public servants, so without obtaining the sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C., the prosecution against them cannot be launched. This argument is not tenable considering the active complicity of these accused persons in the crime. Their act of collusion, with the rest of the accused, to benefit them, has no reasonable nexus with their official duty. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, there is no need to obtain sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C., as argued by their counsel.
In view of the above, the Court is of the view that these petitions are utterly meritless and the same is a serious abuse of the process of law, by stunting the course to do justice in the trial court. All the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 7.2.2007 granted in C482 No.58/2007 is hereby vacated. Let the information be sent to the court below to proceed ahead with the trial expeditiously, which has already been delayed. It is hereby made clear that any observation made in the body of judgment will not be a cause of prejudice to the lower court, while appreciating the evidence in adjudication of all the accused persons.