High Court upheld the order of the trial court rejecting a discharge application in a criminal revision arising from an alleged cheating case involving disputed property possession and false execution of sale deeds.
Revision dismissed, revisionist directed to surrender within 15 days and move for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44155
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 629 of 2023
Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Singh,Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Tewari
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.
The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been filed challenging the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Hardoi in FIR No. 282 of 2021 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Sandila District Hardoi whereby the application moved by the revisionist was rejected.
It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the revisionist has been wrongly made an accused on the basis of statements of the informant and his mother recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C without relying on the documents and the observations made by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I Hardoi in its order dated 27.11.2008. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Case Crime No. 282 of 2022
is lodged by the opposite party No.2 against the revisionist along with three other persons, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Shailendar Sharma and one unknown persons, namely, Vipin
Kumar on 13.06.2022 and the informant who is opposite party No. 2 transferred Kothi and Sehan situated at Village Narmadnapur Paragna Gondwa District Hardoi by registered sale deed on 30.06.2003 in the guardianship of his mother namely Batu Devi. Revisionist Dinesh Kumar is trying to take over possession of the said purchased property forcefully. The informant moved an application to the police Station Atrauli in this regard. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that informant alleged that he is born blind and he never transferred the said property in favour of the revisionist and the revisionist fraudulently got executed sale deed in his favour by cheating. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) FTC, Hardoi has taken cognizance of the same and vide order dated 25.04.2022 rejected the application for discharge moved by the revisionist. It is also submitted that Sunil Kumar and Punil Kumar are the real brothers and the revisionist purchased the property in dispute from Sunil Kumar and FIR has been lodged by Punil Kumar in the name of Sunil Kumar and the fact is that Punil Kumar is informant in the above mentioned crime number who is blind by birth, the said person lodged FIR in the name of Sunil Kumar against the present revisionist.
The opposite party started damaging the house of the revisionist and threatened to kill them if they do not give Rs. 2,00,000/- . The opposite party No.2 pretending himself to be Sunil Kumar
file a complaint at Jan Sunwai Portal bearing complaint No. 2001552003652 on 08.03.2021. The revisionist is bona fide purchaser of the said property. Punil Kumar who is blind by birth with collusion of Sunil Kumar and taking advantage of his blindness falsely lodged this FIR. It is further submitted that the learned trial court, without considering the fact fact disclosed in application for discharge, rejected the application vide order dated 13.01.2023.
It is also mentioned by the learned counsel for the revisionist that OS No. 352 of 2021 regarding the relief of permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed is also pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hardoi. The dispute pending between the parties is civil in nature. The present FIR is lodged on the mislead ground for extorting money, hence, the order of trial court is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that by impersonating Sunil Kumar false sale deed has been executed on 14.09.2020. During investigation prima facie evidence is found against the revisionist for filing charge sheet and investigating officer after collecting sufficient evidence filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the court. Discharge application is misconceived, hence, learned trial court rightly rejected the discharge application.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.
As per the FIR Sunil Kumar was owner in possession of the disputed land vide sale deed dated 30.06.2003 and he was owner in possession since then. Revisionist Dinesh is trying to encroach the land illegally and he has got executed sale deed dated 14.09.2020 through his brother Vipin Kumar impersonating Sunil Kumar and in collusion with witnesses Bhumbneshwar Kumar and Shailender Sharma.
According to the learned counsel for the revisionist Sunil Kumar and Vipin Kumar are the same person. As per case diary parcha no. 17 Naveen Kumar Sharma stated in his statement that Sunil Kumar alias Vipin Kumar, Punil Kumar, Golu and Naveen are the brothers who receive property from their grant father (nana) Chotte Lal through sale deed dated 23.06.2003. Sunil Kumar was 14 years old at that time and he was blind since birth. Vipin Kumar executed sale deed impersonating himself as Sunil Kumar. On the contrary learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Sunil Kumar @ Punil Kumar is blind by birth, however, Vipin Kumar is his another brother. Apparently no document is on record to shown that Sunil Kumar and Vipin Kumar are one and the same person. Hence, according to the evidence procured during investigating Vipin Kumar and Sunil Kumar @ Punil Kumar are two different persons and the sale deed was executed by Vipin Kumar
impersonating Sunil Kumar @ Punil Kumar.
Learned trial court relying upon case laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of ME Shivalingamurty Vs. CBI (2020)2 SCC 768 , State of Orissa Vs. Benendranath padhi 2005 (51)ACC 209 SC and Anti Corruption Bureau Vs. Suryaprakashn 999 SCC Criminal 373 and also the case laid down in the cases of Bhawna Bal Vs Ghanshyam (2020) 2 SCC 217 , Sate of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh Ranjan 2014 (84) ACC 565 SC and Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI (2007) 5 SCC 403 recorded its finding that at the stage of framing of charge the court see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused while evaluating the material strict standard of proof is not required only prima facie evidence is to be seen. Learned trial court found that there is sufficient ground of framing the charge against the revisionsit Dinesh Kumar.
During the arguments on a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the revisionist to the fact that whether he possess any document disclosing the fact that Vipin Kumar and Sunil Kumar @ Punil Kumar are the same person, learned counsel for the revisionist could not indicate even a single paper on record to show that Vipin and Sunil are one and the same person. No other ground is revealed on the application moved for discharge by the accused, hence, the order of learned trial
court is based on evidence collected and procured during the investigation. Learned trial court found sufficient evidence against the revisionist. The revisionist could not show any prima facie evidence in support of his application for discharge moved under Section 239 Cr.P.C
In view of the above discussion there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) FTC Hardoi and the order impugned is liable to be upheld.
Revision filed by the revisionist has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
The revision is dismissed.
The revisionist is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 15 days and move regular bail which shall be decided decided in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2022 (10) SCC 51 .
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Nadeem
Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application in a case involving alleged property fraud is liable to be set aside.
Whether the revisionist has drawn a prima facie case to sustain the discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ME Shivalingamurty Vs. CBIReferred¶19
ME Shivalingamurty Vs. CBI (2020)2 SCC 768 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa Vs. Benendranath padhiReferred¶19
State of Orissa Vs. Benendranath padhi 2005 (51)ACC 209 SC
Anti Corruption Bureau Vs. SuryaprakashnReferred¶19
Anti Corruption Bureau Vs. Suryaprakashn 999 SCC Criminal 373
Bhawna Bal Vs GhanshyamReferred¶19
Bhawna Bal Vs Ghanshyam (2020) 2 SCC 217 · Who else cites this
Sate of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh RanjanReferred¶19
Sate of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh Ranjan 2014 (84) ACC 565 SC
Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBIReferred¶19
Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI (2007) 5 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶25
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2022 (10) SCC 51 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Renu Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
