Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes regarding breaches of power of attorney, which are to be settled within civil jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pranav Tiwari along with Mr. Atharva Dixit, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Amit Saxena, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant Mehrotra, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 and Mr. Vinay Saran, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. K. Maurya, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 3 to 11.

2. Perused the record.

3. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 18.10.2022, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, whereby Criminal Misc. Case No. 900 of 2022 (Anuj Murarka Vs. Bharat Swaroop and Others), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Sungarhi, District Pilibhit, filed by applicant has been rejected.

4. Record shows that Jyoti Swaroop, maternal grand father (Nana) of applicant Anuj Murarka executed gift deed dated 16.3.1970, whereby 12.50 acres of land comprised in Survey Plot No. 411 was gifted to revisionist. Since the revisionist was residing at Delhi, he appears to have executed a power of attorney dated 16.3.1985 in favour of his maternal uncle (Mama) Bharat Swaroop on 16.3.1985. Copy of the said power of attorney is on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of present criminal revision. Subsequently, Bharat Swaroop, the power of attorney holder of revisionist, obtained agricultural loan to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- by mortgaging the land of which he was the power of attorney holder. According to the revisionist, the loan amount was misappropriated by Bharat Swaroop, the power of attorney holder as the entire amount obtained under the loan was syphoned of in the account of opposite party-2 Bharat Swaroop and his wife.

5. Subsequently, Bharat Swaroop, the power of attorney holder executed a registered sale-deed dated 21.1.2014 in respect of the land in dispute whereby and whereunder the entire land of which opposite party-2 Bharat Swaroop was power of attorney holder came to be transferred to one L.H. Sugar Factory Limited, Pilibhit. On the basis of aforesaid registered sale- deed dated 21.1.2014, the Sugar Factory namely, L.H. Sugar Factory Limited, Pilibhit applied for mutation under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The same was allowed, vide order dated 19.5.2014, passed by concerned Tehsildar. Revisionist Anuj Murarka is alleged to have acquired knowledge of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 12.1.2014 in the year 2022. He, accordingly, filed Original Suit No. 105 of 2022 (Anuj Murarka Vs. L.H. Sugar Factory Limited, Pilibhit and another) for a decree of cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 21.1.2014 and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-1 to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the land in dispute in favour of plaintiff i.e. applicant- Anuj Murarka. The said suit is reported to be pending. Ultimately, revisionist-Anuj Murarka filed an application dated 6.7.2022, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. praying therein that in respect of the illegality committed by Bharat Swaroop, the power of attorney holder of applicant and the beneficiaries of the illegal act of the power of attorney holder Bharat Swaroop be brought to books by directing the Station House Officer of concerned Police Station to register an F.I.R. and further conduct an enquiry qua the allegations made in the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

6. Aforementioned application filed by applicant came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 900 of 2022 (Anuj Murarka Vs. Bharat Swaroop and Others), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- S