Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 637
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
V.K. Bist, J.
Sewa Singh and six others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another - Respondents
Crl. Misc. Application No. 34/2009
Decided On : June 27, 2012
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal and Mr. Manav Sarma, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - 120-B, 468, 420 I.P.C. - [120-B, 468, 420 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the allegations of forgery and fraud under Sections 120-B, 468, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the importance of evidence and the need for a trial to determine the genuineness of the disputed Wills. The judgment emphasized that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and that criminal proceedings should not be quashed when there are allegations of fraud and forgery, as there would always be some element of civil nature in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings relating to offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468, 420 I.P.C. The complainant alleged that the petitioners fabricated forged Wills to grab land and filed a complaint case against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of forgery and fraud required a trial to determine the genuineness of the disputed Wills. It emphasized the importance of evidence and the need for a fair trial to reach a just decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the genuineness of the disputed Wills, the allegations of fraud and forgery, and the need for a trial to determine the truthfulness of the averments made by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and that criminal proceedings should not be quashed when there are allegations of fraud and forgery, as there would always be some element of civil nature in such cases.
Final Decision: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the court observed that the trial of the case should proceed. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the Court concerned, and their bail applications would be heard and disposed of expeditiously.
This petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 547 of 2008 ‘Ravinder Singh Saini vs. Sewa Singh and others’ relating to offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468, 420 I.P.C. and the summoning order dated 27.11.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in said case, pending before him.
2. Brief facts, which emerge out from the record, are that complainant/respondent no.2, namely Ravindra Singh Saini is the power of attorney holder of his two real brothers, namely Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh. On 23.07.2008, the complainant filed a complaint case, bearing Criminal Case No. 547 of 2008 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur against the petitioners with the assertion that he is filing the complaint case as power of attorney of Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh. It is alleged in the complaint that one Banta Singh S/o Banga Singh (father of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and grandfather of petitioner nos. 3, 4 & 5), Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh are co-sharer of Khata No. 63 and 96 situate at village Narkhera, Tehsil Bazpur. Banta Singh has died and after his death the petitioners Sewa Singh and Gurdeep Singh with the intension to grab the land of Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh, drafted two unregistered Wills of Banta Singh on 12.02.2000. Each of the forged Wills was drafted having variation of recital, as one paragraph has been added in one of the Wills. The petitioners Sewa Singh and Gurdeep Singh, in order to give undue benefit to their children i.e. petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6, filed mutation suit before Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur and got their names mutated for 2.993 hectare of land against existing land of 2.458 hectare. The petitioners in order to harm Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh exercised the Wills dated 12.02.2000 pretending these Wills as genuine. Petitioner nos. 4 & 6 moved an application on 03.01.2007 before Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur seeking correction of entries in the revenue records, admitting that an excess land measuring 8 Bigha 10 Bishwa has been recorded in their names, while the petitioner nos. 4 to 8 in furtherance of their common intention, got recorded their statement on the basis of forged Wills before the Naib Tehsildar, Bazpur and in order to grab the land of Malkeet Singh and Harjeet Singh prepared forged Wills and used these Wills. The petitioner no.3 Harvinder pretending the forged Will as genuine filed the same before Addl. District Judge, Kashipur and got substituted himself. Both the Wills are of 12.02.2000, witness are same and have been scribed by one Dinesh Chandra Sharma. It is alleged that on 18.06.2008 the complainant tried to lodge First Information Report at P.S. Bazpur, but his endeavours failed. Being constrained, the complainant filed a complaint case against the petitioners except one Mr. Avatar Singh S/o Banta Singh. The complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and in support of his complaint, he examined C.W.1 Malkeet Singh under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The complainant also filed documentary evidence. It appears that the Trial Court, having gone through the evidence on record, after satisfying with the material available on record, vide its order dated 27.11.2008, prima facie, took cognizance in the matter and summoned the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468 and 420 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the order of Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
3. I have heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal and Manav Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners, Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed in mechanical manner. He contended that t
