[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mohan Lal &Another ……Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 29 July, 2025
2025:UHC:7271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.1483 of 2019
Mohan Lal &Another ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma,
learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel, for Respondent No. 2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482
CrPC has been filed by the Applicants challenging the order dated
31.07.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham
Singh Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2013 (Harish Kumar v. State
& Others), whereby the revision preferred by Respondent No. 2 was allowed
and the matter was remitted for consideration.
2. The dispute pertains to agricultural land situated at Village Pattharkui,
Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, recorded in Khata No. 255
Kha measuring 0.110 hectare and Khata No. 259 measuring 1.885 hectare,
total 1.995 hectare. The Applicants claim ownership of the property on the
basis of a memorandum of family settlement dated 18.01.2000, followed by
mutation in their names vide order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Peshkar,
Tehsil Gadarpur, in Mutation Case No. 30/42 of 2001-02.
3. The record indicates that Respondent No. 2 and others challenged the
said mutation order by moving an application under Section 201 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, which was dismissed on 30.07.2008. Subsequent appeal
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1483 of 2019, Mohan Lal and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7271
under Section 210 of the said Act was dismissed by the Additional District
Magistrate (Nazul) on 08.12.2010. Revision before the Commissioner,
Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, was dismissed on 22.01.2016.
4. Apart from revenue proceedings, Respondent No. 2 lodged a
complaint alleging forgery of the family settlement and suppression of facts,
which led to Case No. 52106 of 2012-13 before the Additional District
Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), wherein adverse findings were recorded
regarding the genuineness of the settlement document.
5. An application under Section 156(3) CrPC moved by Respondent No.
2 before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, was dismissed on 27.07.2013.
Criminal Revision No. 172 of 2013 preferred thereagainst was dismissed on
17.11.2014. However, in Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2013, the learned
revisional court, by the impugned order dated 31.07.2019, set aside the
Magistrate's order and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the property dispute
has already attained finality in the revenue hierarchy, with findings up to the
level of the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, against Respondent No. 2. It is
contended that the initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of
process, as no adverse finding regarding forgery has been recorded by any
competent forum.
7. It was urged that the family settlement was duly acted upon and
mutation was validly entered in the names of the Applicants. The complaint
by Respondent No. 2 is alleged to be motivated, filed to reopen concluded
revenue disputes. Reliance has been placed on judicial precedents
emphasising that civil disputes should not be given the colour of criminal
offences in absence of clear allegations constituting ingredients thereof.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the application,
submitting that the family settlement dated 18.01.2000 is a forged and
fabricated document. It is alleged that the signatures of co-sharers, including
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1483 of 2019, Mohan Lal and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7271
Satish Kumar and Mahendra Pal, as well as the thumb impression of their
mother, late Smt. Kailash Rani, are forged.
9. It is pointed out that Smt. Kailash Rani had expired on 08.06.2000, yet
she was impleaded as a party in the mutation proceedings, and the order
dated 30.09.2002 was passed against a deceased person. It is further
submitted that Satish Kumar was abroad from 15.05.2002 to September
2007, thereby rendering his purported participation in the settlement
impossible.
10. Learned counsel submitted that the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), in order dated 30.07.2014, recorded that the
signatures on the family settlement did not tally with the admitted signatures
on the passport, and held the document to be forged. It is urged that such
findings cannot be ignored in criminal proceedings.
11. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
12. The law with respect to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is firmly settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, wherein it was observed that such jurisdiction should be exercised
sparingly and with circumspection, and only when the complaint or FIR
does not disclose any offence, is frivolous or vexatious, or where the
proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The
Court laid down illustrative categories wherein interference may be justified,
but cautioned that the power is not to be invoked to short-circuit legitimate
prosecutions merely on disputed questions of fact.
13. In the present case, the gravamen of the complaint made by
Respondent No. 2 is that the Applicants, on the basis of a forged
memorandum of family settlement dated 18.01.2000, procured mutation of
the disputed property in their names. The specific allegations are that the
signatures of Satish Kumar and Mahendra Pal, as well as the thumb
impression of their mother, late Smt. Kailash Rani, were forged; that the said
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1483 of 2019, Mohan Lal and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7271
Smt. Kailash Rani had passed away on 08.06.2000, yet she was impleaded in
the mutation proceedings; and that Satish Kumar was residing abroad
between 15.05.2002 and September 2007, rendering his participation in the
alleged settlement impossible.
14. These allegations, taken at face value, squarely attract the ingredients
of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Whether the signatures and thumb impression are actually forged, and
whether the Applicants knowingly used such document in judicial
proceedings, are questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence during
trial.
15. The contention of the Applicants that the dispute has already been
adjudicated upon in the revenue hierarchy up to the level of the
Commissioner does not advance their case in the present context. The
findings in mutation proceedings and revenue appeals primarily turned on
procedural issues such as delay in seeking recall of the ex parte order, and
did not involve adjudication on the veracity of signatures or thumb
impressions from the standpoint of criminal liability. The absence of a
conclusive finding on forgery in revenue proceedings does not preclude a
criminal court from examining the same issue on the basis of evidence
adduced before it.
16. Significantly, in proceedings under the Stamp Act, the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), by order dated 30.07.2014, held
that the signatures on the family settlement did not tally with the admitted
signatures on the passport of Satish Kumar, and recorded a finding that the
document appeared to be forged and fabricated. This is a relevant piece of
material that supports the complainant's version and cannot be ignored at the
threshold stage.
17. The impugned order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned
revisional court remits the matter to the Magistrate for reconsideration of the
application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The said order neither suffers from
perversity nor reflects any jurisdictional error. The learned revisional court
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1483 of 2019, Mohan Lal and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7271
has exercised its powers within the statutory framework under Sections 397
and 399 CrPC.
18. Furthermore, the material relied upon by the Applicants in the present
case is not of such unimpeachable nature as would justify quashing of
proceedings. The allegations require detailed scrutiny at the stage of
evidence.
ORDER
In view of the above, this Court finds that the present case does not
fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting interference under
Section 482 CrPC. The allegations are specific, supported by material, and
prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The
continuation of the proceedings cannot, at this stage, be said to be an abuse
of the process of the Court.
Present Criminal Miscellaneous Application fails and is hereby
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
29.07.2025
SB
SHIKSHA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f
BINJOLA
21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00
E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.08.20 10:24:39 +05’30’
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1483 of 2019, Mohan Lal and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_2]
Source link