IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 119 of 2006 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) V.K. Sharma. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. With Criminal Misc. Application No. 279 of 2006 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Mahesh Sharma. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. With Criminal Misc. Application No. 239 of 2006 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Manoranjanee Sharma. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri R.K.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. With Criminal Misc. Application No. 209 of 2006 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Neena Pandey. ……….Applicant. 2 Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. With Criminal Misc. Application No. 187 of 2006 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Gopal Krishan Sharma ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of all these petitions together as the same has arisen out of single order of cognizance dated 20.05.2005 passed by learned Magistrate in criminal complaint case no. 4335 of 2004 (complaint case No. 1474 of 2004 old number) titled as R.K. Pathak Vs. V.K. Sharma and four others. 2. Having heard learned counsels for all the parties, without making scrupulous analysis of the facts in controversy, it transpires that there was a vast land in city Dehradun, which was a family property, having different shares of members of the same. Jai Prakash Sharma was head of the family, who died on 09.04.1996. V.K. Sharma (accused no. 1) and Gopal Krishan Sharma (accused no. 4) are brothers and sons of Jai Prakash Sharma while Manoranjanee Sharma (accused no. 3) is wife of late Jai Prakash Sharma. Accused no. 2 and 5 Mahesh Sharma and Neena Pandey, although not direct family members but 3 somehow or the other, they too are related with this controversy. Mahesh Sharma is power of attorney holder for certain purpose on behalf of V.K. Sharma. V.K. Sharma approached R.K. Pathak (complainant) probably, on the basis of friendship and offered to form a Company namely M/s Vardan Builders and Tourism Pvt. Ltd, having its head office at New Delhi. The task of the company was to raise huge constructions of buildings at Dehradun. A building was proposed to be rented to the State Bank of India Head Office for attractive rent. It was resolved to invest Rs. 25,00,000/- (50-50 per cent by both V.K. Sharma and R.K. Pathak) and the rest of the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was to be invested by Bank itself for raising construction of the building. The building, thus, so constructed in 1991, was to be leased out to the Bank upto 2002 and rent had to be adjusted towards amount of Rs. 70,00,000/-, which were spent by Bank for raising the construction of the building. When the loan credited by Bank to M/s Vardan Builders and Tourism Pvt. Ltd, was fully adjusted by way of payment of rent, then it was settled between R.K. Pathak and V.K. Sharma that rent paid by Bank will be distributed between the two as profit of their initial investment, which they made at the time of establishing the Company. In order to work out this plan, three perpetual lease deeds were executed on 01.05.1989 by Jai Prakash Sharma & Manoranjanee Sharma, Gopal Krishan Sharma and V.K. Sharma respectively. These lease deeds were regarding plots of land, which were in their ownership showing of their respective share. These lease deeds were in favour of M/s Vardan Builders and Tourism Pvt. Ltd whereof V.K. Sharma and R.K. Pathak were Directors. 3. The dispute arose when the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- granted by the Bank was fully adjusted by way of 4 payment of rent amount to Bank itself then time came to reap the fruits of the investment, which R.K. Pathak, being a Director of the Company, made to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- lakhs plus Rs. 3,00,000/- (as alleged). Thus, he invested Rs. 14,00,000/- for raising construction, which was proposed to be rented to State Bank of India, Head Office by M/s Vardan Builders and Tourism Pvt. Ltd. 4. It is a fact that after carving out State of Uttarakhand and all the more declaration of Dehradun as working capital of the Province, rates of immoveable property went steep rise and this was obviously the reason for change of motive of V.K. Sharma, one of the Directors of Company. Being tempted with the feeling of securing the property back from M/s Vardan Builders and Tourism Pvt. Ltd (perpetual lease), he executed three documents naming “Surrender of Lease Deeds” on dated 13.05.2003 and he surrendered all the three big plots of land in favour of Lessors Gopal Krishan Sharma, Manoranjanee Sharma, wife of Jai Prakash Sharma and V.K. Sharma (himself) respectively. He executed all the three surrender of lease deeds on 13.05.2003, as one of the Directors of Company, on the basis of so called resolution dated 09.11.2002 allegedly passed by the Company. Although, it would not be proper for this Court to make any observation regarding validity or invalidity of the so called resolution dated 09.11.2002 (if any) and all the three surrender of lease deeds dated 13.05.2003 because to determine the said controversy, original suit no. 764 of 2003 titled as Manoranjanee Sharma Vs. Rajnikant Pathak (Sharma) has been launched by Manoranjanee Sharma on dated 29.12.2003, which is pending in the civil court, Dehradun. In that suit, Manoranjanee Sharma has made his son V.K. Sharma as Performa defendant and has sought relief 5 of declaration of ownership of herself and her two sons Gopal Krishan Sharma and V.K. Sharma over their respective plots, which were transferred to the Company on 01.05.1989 by way of perpetual lease deeds. On the other hand, Sri Rajnikant Pathak (Sharma) has also launched counter civil suit no. 482 of 2005 on dated 10.08.2005 for seeking relief of declaration of all these alleged surrender of lease deeds as void. So any observation regarding validity or invalidity of surrender deeds or declaration of ownership over the plots of land, may prejudice the course of adjudication by the civil court at Dehradun. So this Court refrains to comment on this point. 5. Yet another aspect of the litigation between the parties is subject matter of controversy in the present petitions. Rajnikant Pathak (Sharma) instituted a impugned complaint on dated 03.09.2004 against all the petitioners and after recording the statements of complainant and his witnesses nay going through other documentary evidence, learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance on 20.05.2005, which is under challenge. In this order, V.K. Sharma has been asked to stand trial for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B while rest of the petitioners have been asked to stand trial for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Although the cause of action in both the criminal and civil litigation is same but it is established principle of law that pendency of civil litigation by itself is not a ground to extinguish the criminal proceedings. Civil and criminal wrong may go together and their respective liability may be determined by courts of law. 6. In the helm of above controversy, it appears that probably there has been some wrongful loss to Rajnikant Pathak (Sharma) complainant on account of his investment, which he did way back two decades and that investment was 6 made on the initiation of V.K. Sharma, who was supported by all his family members and at the time of execution of surrender of lease deeds, he was also assisted by other two petitioners namely Neena Pandey and Mahesh Sharma, so learned Magistrate has not abused any process of law while passing the impugned order of cognizance against all the accused persons. 7. For the reasons as explicated above, all the petitions are meritless and liable to be dismissed. All the petitions are dismissed. Order of cognizance passed by learned Magistrate is upheld. Trial court is directed to proceed ahead with the complaint. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court hereinabove will not prejudice the trial court (civil or criminal) in any manner whatsoever. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 09.12.2011 SKS