Anil Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No. 288 of 2018 • Anil Kumar Verma S/o Late Shiv Shankar Verma, Aged About 54 Years R/o Opposite Manohar Talkies Juna Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralay, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Inspector In General Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, S.P. Office Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. Town Inspector, Police Station Civil Line P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

5. Shri Dinesh Verma S/o Late Shiv Shankar Verma, R/o Near Manohar Talkies Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri PK Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Ashish Shukla, Dy. AG for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 15/05/2018

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is filed claiming following reliefs:- a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable direction(s) to the respondent No.1 to 4 for fair inquiry and take the appropriate action against the respondent No.5 accordance with law.

b. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ to respondent no.1 to 4 to register the F.I.R. against the respondent no.5.

c. This Hon'ble Court may kindly call the entire record of the police station Civil Line with respect of this case and passed the appropriate order on that.

d. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit with cost of petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 Dinesh Verma has initially in the year 2012 filed an application for mutation of the name in respect of the agricultural land on the basis of a WILL. The petitioner having objected to it on the basis of the expert opinion report that signature on WILL is forged, the Tehsildar did not acted upon the WILL and has directed for mutation of the name of all the legal heirs. Subsequently, the said order of the Tehsildar was challenged in the the year 2012 and the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Again an application was filed before the Tehsildar in the year 2018 to get the name mutated in respect of respondent No.5 Dinesh Verma on the basis of the WILL. It is contended that once the issue has been decided that the WILL is forged then in such case, the subsequent proceeding which tried to carry out by suppressing the earlier dismissal would be a fraud, therefore, the report was made to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, however, the police did not acted upon it.

4. Perusal of the document filed along with the petition would show that it is a inter se dispute in between the family members with respect to the mutation of the land. Respondent No.5 is claiming his right on the basis of the WILL whereas the petitioner is claiming that the WILL is forged. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contemplates the proof of WILL, in specific way on the evidence of the attesting witness.

5. Considering the nature of this case, it appears that the property dispute is existing in between the parties for which the petitioner is free to take the civil

action against the erring respondent or other heirs. Any direction by this Court to register the case would ipso facto will give a branding to the fact that the WILL is forged, which is still to be adjudicated before the civil court. The suppression of fact like nature prima facie do not take it within the domain of criminality. The petitioner is free to take recourse as available to him under the law.

6. The petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu