9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant was acquitted of the charge by judgment dated 07.08.1998. The fact that the judgment may not have been made available is therefore inconsequential - The institution of Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 by the Respondent for cancellation of the general power of attorney, after the acquittal of the Appellant, is nothing but an acknowledgment of the genuineness of the general power of attorney executed by the Respondents which he now wished to revoke. The Respondent then filed an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police leading to registration of FIR dated 09.10.2008. The allegations are similar that the Appellant put up an imposter in place of the Respondent and along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same on 31.05.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2016 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda (U.P.). 3. The Respondent No. 2 is stated to have given a general power of attorney to the Appellant on 02.05.1985 and on the basis of which the Appellant sold certain lands belonging to the Respondent. The Respondent lodged FIR No. 160 of 1989 on 14.09.1989 that he had never executed any general power of attorney in favour of the Appellant and that the Appellant has forged general power of attorney to sell his lands illegally. The Appellant was acquitted in the trial as the charge could not be established. Though no records are available, the acquittal is not disputed by counsel for Respondent. The Respondent then filed Civil Suit No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey which was the subject matter of FIR No. 160 of 1989 but conceals the order of acquittal of the Appellant. It is submitted that in the facts of the case, the institution of the FIR on 09.10.2008 long years after execution of general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 is, therefore, a complete abuse of the process of law and the proceedings are fit to be quashed. Referring to Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure it is submitted that the Appellant could not have been tried for the same offence twice at the behest of the Respondent who is the complainant himself in both the FIRs. 6. Mr. Amit Yadav, learned Counsel for the Respondent-complainant, submits that the High Court has declined interference since the ingredients of the two FIRs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the genuineness of the general power of attorney executed by the Respondents which he now wished to revoke. 10. The Respondent then filed an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police leading to registration of FIR dated 09.10.2008. The allegations are similar that the Appellant put up an imposter in place of the Respondent and along with one Sushil Kumar Singh and Arvind on the basis of a general power of attorney, which the Respondent had never executed, sold his lands. The FIR itself recites that earlier also the Appellant had sold the lands of the Respondent on the basis of same general power of attorney, but conceals the order of acquittal dated 07.08.1998, and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
