Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SITA RAM & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sita Ram & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 11936 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17489 (10 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

The petitioner No. 1 is the person, who is alleged to have fabricated the power of attorney and on that strength executed a sale deed. The petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are marginal witnesses of the sale deed and the petitioner No. 5 is the purchaser.

It appears that main allegation is against the petitioner No. 1 and it can not necessarily be said at this stage that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were aware of the power of attorney being fabricated, if it was fabricated.

Therefore, issue notice to the opposite party No. 3, returnable within one month. List on the date fixed in the notice.

Till the next listing or till submission of a police report under section 173 Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 will not be arrested in case crime No. 185 of 2006 under section 420/467/468/471/120-B/193/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Sadar district Mathura.

So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it is his admitted case that the sale deed was executed by him and he submits that the power of attorney, which is a registered document is a genuine document and not a fabricated document. Further, because the sale deed has been executed for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, therefore, we require the petitioner No. 1 to file a supplementary affidavit with details and supporting documents to indicate whether the money passed from the purchaser through the petitioner No. 1 to the owner of the property. List on the date fixed.

The vakalatnama filed on behalf of the petitioner today, may be kept on record.

Dated : October 10, 2006

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.