IMPORTANT POINT
At the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court must consider only the prosecution's materials, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST Act, 1989, has been filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura, in S.S.T. No.1999 of 2016 (State vs. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal), arising out of Case Crime No.374 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 3(1)IX SC/ST Act, Police Station-Highway, District-Mathura.

3. Brief facts of the case; that an FIR has been lodged through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Dwarika Prasad S/o Bhoop Singh against the appellant with the allegations that Bhoop Singh was owner of Khasra No.97, Gata No.67, situated at Village-Nawada, District-Mathura along with Kishan Singh and Dwarika Prasad. The eyes of the appellant was on this property and he wanted to purchase the same in less value, for which he pressurized Bhoop Singh father of the informant. He also used caste indicative words in order to take the property in question. When Bhoop Singh was alive, partition of the property was done and as per the mutual consent between the family members of the Bhoop Singh, the property was divided amongst Dwarika Prasad his brother and mother and application in this regard was given, on which, order dated 14.07.2008 was passed by SDM making partition of the property in accordance with the settlement between the parties. An application was given by Bhoop Singh for declaring the land as Abadi, on which order dated 02.05.2001 was passed by the SDM. In the records of the aforesaid case, an application as well as affidavit having signatures of Bhoop Singh were found. The signatures in the aforesaid application were sent for being verified with the signatures as made by Bhoop Singh in the proceedings for cancellation of Mukhtarnama, which were found in the records in the office of the registry, Mathura.

4. The signatures of Bhoop Singh as accepted to be made in the proceedings for cancellation of power of attorney, did not tally with that of the application as well as affidavit moved for declaration of Abadi. Thus, alleging that the appellant has conspired to forged signatures of Bhoop Singh in the application and affidavit. Thus, the allegations in the FIR in short was that the application and affidavit alleged to be given by Bhoop Singh wherein order dated 02.05.2001 was passed by SDM, was not at all moved by him and the application and affidavit so placed before the S.D.M. were having forged signatures of Bhoop Singh.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant are an after thought, as such the same is not only malicious but also amount to abuse of process of Court. He further submits that the concerned Court below has rejected the discharge application of the applicant without assigning any reason, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the concerned Court below is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the brief facts of the case which are as follows:-

(i) The First Information Report has been lodged on 27.04.2014 at 12:10 PM by Dwarika Prasad s/o Late Bhoop Singh against the appellant Dinesh Kumar Agarwal with the allegations that father of the first informant, namely, Bhoop Singh was in possession of land of Khasra No.97, Khata No.67 situated in village Nawada District-Mathura along with his co-sharer, namely, Kishan Singh and Dwarika Prasad. When Bhoop Singh expired on 30.12.2010, the first informant became the owner of the property by law of succession along with his brother Mahesh Chandra, Vijendra Singh and mother Ram Kumari.

(ii) It has further alleged that on 14.07.2008 when father of the first informant was alive, a partition suit u/s 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed in favour of Bhoop Singh, as a consequence of which pa