Mahesh Chand Sharma vs State Of U.P. & Ors

4. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are mentioned hereinbelow:

5. The appellant filed a complaint purportedly under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 13.10.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. The main allegation in the said complaint is that he had purchased land admeasuring 0.38 decimal from Mahesh Chand, S/o Shri Jagan Prasad vide registered sale deed dated 6.10.1986. Pursuant to the execution of said sale deed in favour of the appellant-Mahesh Chand Sharma, he was handed over possession of the same by the vendor and since then he continues to be in possession thereof. Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 3

10. On the strength of these allegations, an order under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was passed. The said application/complaint of the appellant was allowed and police registered the FIR and started investigation.

12. As would be revealed from the facts of the case, it was Area Lekhpal who, in furtherance of his evil intentions, gave a false statement with an object to help the accused asserting that the last descendant of Bidha Ram, i.e., Mahesh Chand, vendor of the appellant had Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 5 already died. On the strength of this statement having been made by Area Lekhpal, the names of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were mutated in their favour by the Court of Tehsildar on 9.10.1992.

15. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed in favour of the appellant, accused-respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Agra Division, but it met the fate of dismissal. The matter thus came to an end as far as mutation proceedings were concerned.

16. Looking to the adamant and offensive attitude of the accused, the appellant was constrained to move a Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 6 complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the learned Magistrate, Mathura who directed to investigate the matter and register a case against the accused- respondents. An FIR was registered as Crime No.51/2004. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted the final report on 15.12.2004. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said final report of the police, filed a Protest Petition in the Court of A.C.J.M., Mathura on 19.3.2005, who treated it to be a complaint and fixed the case for recording of the statement of the appellant.

26. The ratio decidendi of the aforesaid two cases lead us to a conclusion that the order passed by the learned Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8077 of 08 14 Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.

27. Learned Single Judge proceeded on absolutely wrong facts and incorrect principles of law have been applied.

31. Looking to the facts from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly hereby set aside and quashed.

32. As a necessary consequence thereof, learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the Criminal Complaint filed by appellant herein against the accused- respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in accordance with law and on merits at an early date and endeavour would be made by him to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

33. The appeal stands allowed.