The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in criminal investigations, emphasizing the need for evidence before summoning individuals, and recognized failures in both the investigative process and the legal framework.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard Shri N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. Succinctly, the crux of the allegations are that the complainant's father had four shops in his name bearing no.7/11, 7/1, 7/2, 7/8, and his mother had two shops in her name bearing No. 7/11 and 7/4, respectively, situated at Ramganj, Sarai Hakeem Bannaderi, District Aligarh. Petitioner no. 3, who is the elder brother of the complainant's father, in connivance with other applicants, executed two forged power of attorneys dated 06.04.2023 in which, apparently, Amita Rani- the mother of complainant, authorized Gaurav and his wife Priyanka to execute the sale-deed and appoint advocate, and to take care of the demised property for and on her behalf, and Pradeep Kumar – the father of complainant, authorized Subhash Chandra, his younger brother to execute the sale deed and appoint advocate, and to take care of the demised property for and on his behalf, besides, other allegations of restraining, abusing and causing threat to life and property of the complainant.

3. Based on the aforesaid facts, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.01.2024 directed S.H.O. P.S. Civil Lines Aligarh to register the FIR against the applicants and consequent thereupon, FIR bearing no. 8/2024, under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C. was registered against; (i) Gaurav S/o Subhash Chandra, (ii) Priyanka W/o Gaurav, (iii) Subhash Chandra S/o Late Shri Krishan Murari Lal, (iv) Saurabh S/o Subhash Chandra, (v) Ankur S/o Subhash Chandra, (vi) Richa W/o Suarabh, and, (vii) Priya W/o Ankur, all resident of Ramghat Road, Mahuwa Kheda, Aligarh at Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.

4. The investigation was completed within 18 days and the police choose to file the closure report relying upon the statements of the complainant, inspection report of the place of offence, statements of witnesses, C.C.T.V. footage and statements of police officers on public duty, some fruit sellers, and the statement of a stamp vendor along with the notary public. Aggrieved by the closure report, the complainant preferred the protest petition against the applicants. The protest petition was allowed by impugned summoning order dated 03.04.2024 and thus, the applicants are before this Court.

5. Shri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, submitted that; (i) the impugned summoning order is in the teeth of Pakhandu and Others v. State of U.P. & Anr., [2001 SCC OnLine All 967], Harkesh Singh and Others v. State of U.P. , [2001 (43) All CRIC 720], and Anwar & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., [LAWS (All)-2016-5-560], (ii) learned trial Court has erroneously placed reliance upon an affidavit containing certain documents- which were, of course not part of the closure report - filed by the complainant in support of the protest petition, (iii) there is a civil suit bearing Original Suit No. 567 of 2016 and 568 of 2016 has been pending between the parties, (iv) the Investigating Officer has rightly concluded the investigation and filed the closure report, and (v) both the power of attorneys dated 06.04.2023 are not a registered docume