IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 657/2009 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Rajesh Sharma & Another …….Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ……Respondents Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for the private respondent. 23rd August, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicants have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2404/2009, State v. Rajesh Sharma & Others. The said case was registered as Case Crime No. 156/2007, and the police submitted the chargesheet after the investigation for the offence of Section 420, 467, 468, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC, and the same is pending trial before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that a land, measuring 0.295 hectares, situated in village Mianwala, Pargana Parvadoon, District Dehradun, was under transaction between the applicants as vendee on the one hand and one Ramesh Chandra as a vendor on the other. Ramesh Chandra, who was the owner of the land, in question, entered into an agreement to sell on 6.4.1987 for a total sale consideration of ` 6000/-. Out of ` 6000/-, ` 5500/- were paid at the time of agreement to sell, and rest amount of ` 500/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Subsequent 2 thereto, on 1.5.1990, a receipt of the said amount was issued by Ramesh Chandra, acknowledging the payment of the aforesaid amount. It was also stated that he has transferred the possession of the land, in question, to Rajesh Sharma. 3. Lateron, he did not execute the sale deed and kept on demanding more money from Rajesh Sharma in the name of exorbitant hike in the price of land in question. This process continued for quite sometime, and Mr. Rajesh Sharma in that process paid ` 1,55,000/- and some odd amount in that process till 27.3.2003, wherefor receipt was issued by Ramesh Chandra in favour of Mr. Rajesh Sharma. But Ramesh Chandra still then did not execute the sale deed in favour of Rajesh Sharma. Therefore, Mr. Rajesh Sharma and his father Mr. Shanti Prasad Sharma, who both are practicing lawyers in the Dehradun courts, explored another method of getting the sale deed executed from Ramesh Chandra, and in order thereto, Mr. Shanti Prasad Sharma allegedly got executed a Special Power of Attorney in his favour on 28.4.2003 from Ramesh Chandra and that Special Power of Attorney was also duly registered in the concerned office. 4. On the strength of the said Special Power of Attorney, applicant no. 2 Shanti Prasad Sharma (father) executed the sale deed of the land, in question, in favour of applicant no. 1 Rajesh Sharma (son). The mutation in respect of the said land was applied for on the basis of this sale deed and the land was also mutated accordingly in the revenue records. This Court has been informed that thereafter on the intervention of respondent no. 2. Mr. V.K. Khanna, the mutation, which was made in favour of Rajesh Sharma, was cancelled, and thereafter the said land was mutated in the name of Mr. V.K. Khanna, where against an appeal is pending. 3 5. It appears that Ramesh Chandra, the vendor did the mischief. When he noticed the exorbitant appreciation of the price of his land, he executed the sale deed of the same land on 13.6.2002 in favour of Mr. V.K. Khanna. When Mr. V.K. Khanna noticed that the Special Power of Attorney dated 28.4.2003 and the sale deed executed on that strength on 2.5.2003 are in the name of Mr. Sharmas (applicants), then he lodged an FIR on 14.8.2007. The matter was investigated and the chargesheet was submitted against the applicants, as aforementioned. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment of conviction dated 1.8.2009 delivered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which also entails the statement of Ramesh Chandra under Section 313 CrPC. This statement discloses the confession made by Ramesh Chandra regarding execution of Special Power of Attorney in favour of applicant no. 2 Shanti Prasad Sharma, but at the same time, he has also disclosed that the execution of the said Special Power of Attorney was done in an illegal manner. 7. Learned Counsel on behalf of the private respondent has drawn the attention of this Court towards an application for confession given by Ramesh Chandra while facing a criminal trial no. 12001/2007. In that application, Ramesh Chandra has disclosed that both Sharmas (applicants) took him to the Registrar office on the pretext of becoming a witness of some transaction and obtained his signatures on some blank papers. They also procured his signatures many a times on one pretext or the other by luring him by giving rupees fifty or hundred for alcoholic drinks. He has denied the execution of any Special Power of Attorney or agreement or 4 execution of sale deed in respect of the land, in question, in favour of Mr. Sharmas. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the impugned chargesheet. Accordingly, this petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed accordingly. 9. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 23.8.2011 Prabodh