SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(All) 233

H.C.P.TRIPATHI
Har Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Hans Ram – Respondent


Advocates:
C.S. Gupta and S.S. Bhatnagar, for Applicant; J.N. Chaturvedi, D.P. Mittal (for No. 3), for Opposite Parties.

ORDER : On the 3rd of April, 1961 applicant filed a complaint before a Magistrate First Class at Meerut on the allegations that he was the Bhumidhar of plots Nos. 836, 837 and 821 of village Shafiabad, that in pursuance of a conspiracy amongst themselves, the opposite parties with a view to cause loss to the applicant got a fictitious sale-deed in respect of the aforesaid plots executed and registered in favour of opposite party No. 1 on 9th January 1981 for alleged consideration of Rs. 2000/- and on the basis of that forged deed opposite party No. 2 moved an application for mutation of plots before the Tahsildar Hapur and thereby they had all committed offences under Sections 467 and 471 I.P.C.

2. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that as the allegations made in the complaint indicated that the alleged offences were committed in relation to a proceeding before the court of the Tahsildar, the complaint was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, dismissed it without framing any charge against the accused. The applicant came up in revision against that order before the learned Sessions Judge but it was dismissed. Hence this revision.

3. Learned coun
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top