Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 495
2010 (2) N.C.C. 697
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav
Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 2006
VIJENDRA CHAUDHARY – Applicant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 03.08.2010
For the Appellant : Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 420, 466, 467, 468 & 471, Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 — Offence under — Summoning order — Against advocate — If any forged document is handed over to advocate by his client — He cannot be held responsible — Simply because the alleged death certificate had been produced by advocate before the court — It does not prove that the advocate, who produced it, had committed the offence — Moreover, the advocate would not have been the beneficiary if the said certificate was accepted or rejected — It would ultimately be the person who would have received some wrongful gain by producing it — The advocate is normally appointed as attorney by the client to discharge the duties as his legal advisor — Offence u/sec 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner/advocate quashed.
(Paras 10 to 12)
Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 420] 466] 467] 468 vkSj 471 vkSj n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482 & ds vUrxZr vijk/k ds dsl esa vf/koDrk ds fo#) lEefuax vkns'k ikfjr gqvk & ;fn dksbZ QthZ nLrkost vf/koDrk dks mlds eqofDdy }kjk gLrxr fd;k tkrk gS rks mls mRrjnk;h ugha ekuk tk ldrk & dsoy bl dkj.k ls fd iz'uxr e`R;q izek.k i= ftl vf/koDrk }kjk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ls ;g fl) ugha gksrk fd mlds }kjk dksbZ vijk/k fd;k x;k Fkk & blds vfrfjDr vf/koDrk dks dksbZ ykHk gksus okyk Hkh ugha Fkk ;fn dfFkr izek.ki= Lohdkj gksrk ;k vLohdkj & bl esa vfUre :i ls ogh O;fDr gS tks bls izLrqr djds vuqfpr ykHk izkIr djuk pkgsxk & vf/koDrk dks lkekU;r;k eqofDdy }kjk ,d eq[R;kj ds :i esa dkuwuh lykgdkj dh rjg dk;Z djus gsrq fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS & vf/koDrk@;kph ds fo#) /kkjk 420] 466] 467] 468] 471 vk ih lh ds rgr vijk/k fujLr fd;k x;kA
¼izLrj 10 ls 12½
Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. : This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by applicant challenging the order dated 23.01.2006 vide which he has been chargesheeted under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ajit Singh had moved an application before Naib Tehsildar, Jaspur along with death certificate of Amrik Singh issued by Gram Pradhan stating that land bequeathed by Amrik Singh be mutated in his name. During the said proceedings, Sukhbir Singh, son of Amrik Singh appeared as witness and deposed that his father Amrik Singh had died on 12.01.2000. He was living separately from his sons namely Sukhbir Singh and Jagtar Singh and Ajit Singh was looking after his father. Being happy with Ajit Singh, Amrik Singh bequeathed the land measuring 0.809 hectare in khasra Nos. 114, 116, 131, 132 in revenue record situated at village Gari Husain in favour of Ajit Singh. He identified the signatures of his father on the said WILL. Balbir Singh, who also appeared as witness, stated that Amrik Singh died on 12.01.2000 and he had bequeathed his land measuring about 2 acres in favour of Ajit Singh. He was one of the attesting witnesses to the WILL. The said mutation proceedings were rejected by Naib Tehsildar mainly on the ground that death certificate of Amrik Singh had not been issued by Block Development Officer but the same had been issued by Gram Pradhan only and therefore, it was not acceptable.
3. Since aggrieved Ajit Singh filed an appeal challenging the said order before Assistant Collector specifically mentioning that the Naib Tehsildar erred in not accepting the death certificate submitted by the appellant. According to the appellant that certificate was issued by Gram Pradhan only. The said appeal was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Jaspur and Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that as per death certificate submitted by the appellant Amrik Singh is still alive and had gone abroad about 7-8 year ago. It has been further mentioned that wife and sons of Amrik Singh have sold the property in favour of Ajit Singh and Ajit Singh in order to save stamp duty has prepared a forged WILL. It is further concluded that even the death certificate of Amrik Singh issued by Block Development Officer has not been submitted by Ajit Singh. It has further been observed that other co-sharers of Amrik Singh in connivance with appellant Ajit Singh have prepared a forged death certificate. On enquiry it was found that no death certificate was issued with regard to death of Amrik Singh, therefore, it is proved that forged death certificate of Amrik Singh has been produced in the court. Thus, appeal was dismissed. On the basis of findings of Assistant Collector, Jaspur a complaint was submitted by Block Development Officer regarding the forged death certificate of Amrik Singh produced by Vijendra Chaudhary before Assistant Collector, Jaspur. Sri Vijendra Chaudhary, advocate, who appeared on behalf of Ajit Singh in an appeal against the order dated 02.05.2005 passed by Naib Tehsildar, who rejected the application for sanction of mutation on the basis of WILL of Amrik Singh made in favour of Ajit Singh.
4. On the basis of complaint, challan was submitted before Magistrate, thus, applicant Vijendra Chaudhary has been chargesheeted under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC and summon has been issued against the applicant vide order dated 23.01.2006. Since aggrieved, applicant has filed present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner simply appeared as Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajit Singh and whatever documents were handed over by the appellant Ajit Singh to him were produced before the Court. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for the offence committed by th
