JUDGEMENT
S.K.AWASTHI,J. -
(1.)The applicants have filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C , 1973challenging the order dated 11/05/2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Session Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial no. 311/2012, by which the Court has allowed the application filed by the Prosecution under section 319 of Cr.P.C , 1973and taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 474, 120-B of IPC against the petitioner and has also issued nonbailable warrant to secure their presence before the Court.
(2.)The short fact leading to filing of the present petition is that on 14/06/2012, the complainant Mangilal made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh alleging that the land about 26.23 hectors situated in Village - Rakhliya, Tehsil and District - Rajgarh is belonging to his joint family property. The joint holder of the property, Shaligram and her wife Radhibai are already dead and they have no issue. Other co-Owner of the property was Balla and Gangabai is the second wife of Balla. Balla and Gangabai are also dead. Jatanbai is the daughter of Gangabai from his first husband. The aforesaid land was in the possession of the complainant Mangilal and his family. It is alleged that Mangilal inquired the status of the aforesaid land, then it came to his knowledge that Jatanbai fraduently impersonated herselve as Radhibai and executed the sale deed in favour of the present petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered at Crime no. 295/2012 dated 29/06/2012 against Jatanbai, Sorambai, lalsingh, Dhuliji Tawar, Pappu Tawar, Prem Singh and Jagdish Tawar. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the aforesaid persons.
(3.)The trial Court has framed the charges against the aforesaid accused persons and recorded the statements of the ten prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, Additional Public Prosecutor moved an application dated 28/01/2017 under section 319 of Cr.P.C , 1973by contending that the petitioner no. 1 Dr. Madhu Sakksena has purchased the land through his power of attorney Sumit Sakksena and as per the evidence in the case, the petitioners are also to be prosecuted and may be arrayed as accused in the case. The trial Court, by order dated 11/05/2017, allowed the said application holding that on persual of the records, it is clear that the petitioners have also presented one lady in place of Radhibai and by whom, they have made execution of the said sale deed, which also corroborated with the statement of the complainant, therefore, prima-facie, it is found that the petitioners have also committed the offences, therefore, the cognizance was taken against them and non-bailable arrest warrants were issued against the petitioners.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.