# Dr. Dev Nath Verma v. State Through C.B.I./ Sic-Iv/Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-31
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 914 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-dev-nath-verma-v-state-through-c-b-i-sic-iv-lucknow-44840
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Practice
and Procedure - Perpetuation of interim
orders-is denial of justice which does not
augur well for the justice delivery
system. (Para 8)

B.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Discharge Application
- Scope- Section 239 Cr.P.C - Charge
sheet
against
the
petitioner
under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and under
Sections 182/211 IPC by the C.B.I -
Evidence against petitioner of having
filed forged documents and making false
averments in Writ Petition instituted on
false charge - At this stage, the Trial
court is not required to examine and
consider the evidence and material on
record in detail or to form a final opinion.
Only requirement is to form an opinion
whether, prima facie, case raising strong
suspicion against the petitioner for
commission of the offence is made out or
not- If the trial court is of the opinion
that there is sufficient material and
evidence on record, that raises a strong
suspicion
against
the
accused
of
commission of the offence and proceed
for framing of the charge. (Para 23,24,30)

At present, it cannot be said that there is no
evidence or material on the basis of which no
prima facie case against the accused is made
out
to
raise
strong
suspicion
of
his
involvement in the commission of the offence.
(Para 31)

Criminal
Application
accordingly
dismissed. (E-3)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,971 of 61,465. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39971 for what follows._

3 All. Dr. Dev Nath Verma Vs. State
1
(2019)11ILR A1

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I , J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 914 of 2004

Dr. Dev Nath Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State Through C.B.I./ Sic-Iv/Lucknow
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Nandit Srivastava.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Bireshwar Nath, Govt. Advocate, Sri
Rishad Murtaza

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Practice
and Procedure - Perpetuation of interim
orders-is denial of justice which does not
augur well for the justice delivery
system. (Para 8)

B.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Discharge Application
- Scope- Section 239 Cr.P.C - Charge
sheet
against
the
petitioner
under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and under
Sections 182/211 IPC by the C.B.I -
Evidence against petitioner of having
filed forged documents and making false
averments in Writ Petition instituted on
false charge - At this stage, the Trial
court is not required to examine and
consider the evidence and material on
record in detail or to form a final opinion.
Only requirement is to form an opinion
whether, prima facie, case raising strong
suspicion against the petitioner for
commission of the offence is made out or
not- If the trial court is of the opinion
that there is sufficient material and
evidence on record, that raises a strong
suspicion
against
the
accused
of
commission of the offence and proceed
for framing of the charge. (Para 23,24,30)

At present, it cannot be said that there is no
evidence or material on the basis of which no
prima facie case against the accused is made
out
to
raise
strong
suspicion
of
his
involvement in the commission of the offence.
(Para 31)

Criminal
Application
accordingly
dismissed. (E-3)

List of cases cited:-
1. Arjan Singh & ors. Vs Hazara Singh, (1980)
SCC (Cri) 309

2. Dilawsar Balu Kurane Vs St. of M.H., (2002)
SCC (Cri) 310

3. Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I. (2010) 9 SCC 368

4. St. of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police
Vigilance & Anti-corruption Vs N. Suresh Rajan
& ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709

5. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & anr.,
(2012) 9 SCC 460

6. St. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs S.
Selvi & anr., (2018) 13 SCC 455

7. Asim Sharif Vs National Investigation
Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 149

8. Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs St. of Goa & ors.: (2019)
SCC OnLine SC 1053

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J. )

1. The present petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of the proceedings in Criminal
Case no.5 of 2002 (State Vs. Dr. Dev
Nath verma) pending in the court of
Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution and
CBI, Lucknow and for setting aside the
order dated 2.4.2003 passed by the
Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution and
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CBI, Lucknow rejecting the application
for discharge filed by the petitioner as
well as the order dated 27.2.2004 passed
by the revisional court rejecting the
revision filed against the order dated
2.4.2003.

2. Before coming to the merit of the
case, some startling facts, which are borne
out from the record, are required to be
mentioned in the present case. This Court
during vacation on 3.6.2004 issued notice
on this petition and fixed 19.7.2004 as the
next date for hearing on admission. It was
also directed that till the date fixed in the
case, charge should not be framed.
Counter affidavit was filed by the C.B.I.
and three days' time was granted for filing
rejoinder affidavit. Vide order dated
19.7.2004, it was directed that the matter
to be listed in the next week. However,
the interim order dated 3.6.2004, which
was limited till the next date of listing i.e.
19.7.2004, was not extended. The case
was listed on 26.7.2004, but no order was
passed. Thereafter, the case was not listed
for almost an year and, therefore, the
C.B.I. filed an application on 22.7.2005
for listing the present case for hearing.
This Court vide order dated 25.7.2005
directed the case to be listed in the second
week of August, 2005 and, disposed of
the said application. On 11.8.2005 the
case was listed, but no order was passed.
Similar was the case on 8.11.2005. The
C.B.I.
thereafter,
again
moved
an
application on 16.2.2006 for listing of the
case for hearing. This Court disposed of
the
said
application
on
20.2.2006
directing the case to be listed in the week
commencing 27.2.2006. The case was
listed on 28.2.2006, but no order was
passed. The C.B.I. again moved an
application on 6.9.2006 for listing the
case at an early date. This Court vide
order dated 8.9.2006 directed the matter
to be listed in the next week. On
15.9.2006 the case was listed, but no
order was passed. The C.B.I. thereafter,
moved fourth application for listing of the
case on 13.11.2006. This Court vide order
dated
15.11.2006
noted
that
after
15.9.2006 the case was not listed and,
therefore, directed the case to be listed in
the last week of November, 2006. The
case was listed on 29.11.2006, but no
order was passed. On 16.3.2007 the C.B.I.
moved fifth application praying for listing
of the case for hearing at an early date.
This Court vide order dated 19.3.2007
disposed of the said application directing
the matter to be listed on its own turn.
Thereafter, the matter was listed on
19.4.2007, but no order was passed. On
8.2.2008 the C.B.I. moved another
application for listing of the case for
hearing.
The
case
was
listed
on
15.2.2008, but no order was passed. The
C.B.I. again moved an application on
11.4.2008 for listing of the case for
hearing, but none was present, therefore,
vide order dated 21.4.2008 the case was
directed to be listed in usual course. The
case was listed on 4.7.2008, but no order
was passed.

3. The C.B.I. thereafter, filed an
application on 2.7.2008 for dismissal of
the case. It was submitted by the C.B.I.
that there were sufficient oral and
documentary evidence available against
the petitioner and, no case for quashing of
the proceedings was made out. This
application was listed on 1.8.2008, but no
order was passed on the said application.
On 1.9.2008 when the application for
dismissal and the petition were listed
before the Court, learned counsel for the
petitioner sent illness slip to get the
matter adjourned. On request of learned
3 All. Dr. Dev Nath Verma Vs. State
3
counsel for the C.B.I. the matter was
directed to be listed in the next week. On
8.9.2008, the case was directed to be listed
on the next date i.e. 9.9.2008 for hearing on
the application for dismissal. On 9.9.2008
rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the
petitioner and, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the
C.B.I. were heard. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, however, prayed for some time
to file typed copy of the impugned order
and, the Court directed that the matter to be
listed in the next cause list to enable learned
counsel for the petitioner.

4. The case was listed on 19.9.2008,
but no order was passed. The C.B.I.
thereafter, moved another application on
2.12.2008 for listing of the case as well
C.M. Application No.52696 of 2009 for
dismissal of the petition. This Court vide
order dated 4.12.2008 directed the case to
be listed on 11.12.2008. On 11.12.2008
when the application for dismissal was
listed, no one appeared on behalf of the
petitioner, however, learned counsel for
the C.B.I. was present and the Court,
therefore, directed that the matter to be
listed in the next week. On 18.12.2008,
the Court again directed the matter to be
listed in the next month. On 9.1.2009, the
matter was listed and, no one appeared on
behalf of the petitioner, however, learned
counsel for the C.B.I. was present. This
Court directed the matter to be listed in
the next week. On 16.1.2009, a request
was made for listing the matter in the next
week and, the case was directed to be
listed in the next week. Again on
23.1.2009 and 30.1.2009, no orders were
passed. On 17.4.2009 learned counsel for
the petitioner again sought adjournment
on the ground of his illness and, the case
was adjourned and, it was directed to be
listed in the next week. On 23.4.2009, the
case was directed to be listed on
27.4.2009 before appropriate Bench. On
27.4.2009,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner was on sanctioned leave.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. was
present and the case was adjourned and,
the matter was directed to be listed in the
next week. On 6.5.2009, no order was
passed. On 28.7.2009, this Court directed
that the matter to be listed on 18.8.2009.
From the aforesaid order-sheet, it is
evident that the interim order, which was
initially granted on 3.6.2004, was limited
only upto 19.7.2004 and, thereafter, the
said interim order was not extended.
However,
on
19.8.2009,
the
Court
directed the matter to be listed in the next
cause list and directed that the interim
order, if any, should continue till then.
The case was listed on 31.8.2009.
However, on request of learned counsel
for the petitioner, the case was directed to
be listed on 2.9.2009, but interim order
was not extended. On 2.9.2009, it appears
that there was not enough time left with
the Court to take up the matter and, on the
request of learned counsel for the C.B.I.
the case was directed to be listed in the
next week. On 11.9.2009, the matter was
directed to be listed in the next cause list.
Thereafter, the case was listed on
10.11.2009, but no order was passed.
Similarly, the case was listed on 7.4.2010,
10.2.2011 and 21.2.2011, but no orders
were passed. On 21.2.2011, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
sought
adjournment on the ground that he was on
sanctioned
leave
up
23.3.2011.
Accordingly, the matter was directed to
be listed on 24.3.2011 before appropriate
Court. It was specifically stated that the
interim order granted was not extended.

5. On 28.2.2011, the case was
directed to be listed on the next day i.e.
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.3.2011. On 1.3.2011, no order was
passed and the case was directed to be
listed in terms of order dated 21.2.2011.
On 24.3.2011, 8.4.2011 and 13.7.2011, no
orders were passed when the case was
listed before the Court. On 21.10.2011
this Court directed the matter to be listed
in the next cause list. However, interim
order, which was specifically made clear
that it had not been extended in the order
dated 21.2.2011, was again extended. On
28.11.2011, it was directed that the mater
to be listed after two weeks and, also
interim order, if any, to continue till the
next date of listing. On 19.12.2011 on the
illness slip of learned counsel for the
petitioner, the case was ordered to be
listed in the second week of January,
2012. However, interim order was not
specifically extended. On 13.1.2012,
learned counsel for the petitioner again
sought adjournment and, the case was
directed to be listed after two weeks. On
20.1.2012, no order was passed and, on
25.1.2012, it was directed that the case to
be listed in the next week. On 2.2.2012,
no order was passed. Similarly, on
13.2.2012, no order was passed. On
27.2.2012, it was directed that the matter
to be listed in the week commencing 26th
March, 2012. On 14.5.2012, it was
directed that the case to be listed in the
month of July, 2012. The interim order
which was again not extended after
28.11.2011, was extended vide order
dated 16.7.2012 and, the case was
directed to be listed on 18.7.2012. On
18.7.2012, the case was directed to be
listed along with Criminal Misc. Case
no.543 of 1993. On 24.8.2012, it was
directed that the matter to be listed in the
second
week
of
September,
2012.
Thereafter, the case was directed to be
listed along with Criminal Misc. Case
No.543 of 1998 and Writ Petition
No.642(MB) of 1995 vide order dated
14.9.2012. Thereafter, the case was not
listed. On 5.6.2017, no one appeared on
behalf of the petitioner, however, learned
counsel or the C.B.I. was present and, the
case was directed to be listed in the next
cause list. Again on 12.3.2018, the case
was directed to be listed in the week
commencing 26.3.2018. On 30.8.2018, it
was directed the case to be listed in the
next cause list. On 14.2.2019 when the
case was called out, learned counsel for
the petitioner sought adjournment and,
this Court directed the case to be listed
peremptorily in the next cause list. The
case was listed on 27.2.2019, however,
learned counsel for the petitioner did not
appear even when the case was taken up
in the revised call and, therefore, this
Court dismissed the petition for want of
prosecution and, the interim order, if any,
was ordered to be vacated. This Court
also
directed
that
the
office
to
communicate the order to the court below
within ten days.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner moved
an application for recall of the order dated
27.2.2019 and, this Court vide order dated
26.3.2019
recalled
the
order
dated
27.2.2019 and, restored the petition to its
original number. On 29.4.2019, this Court
directed the case to be listed peremptorily
along with the record of Writ Petition
No.155 (MB) of 1996 and Criminal Misc.
Case No.543 of 1998 in the next cause
list. On request of the parties, the case
was directed to be listed in the next cause
list vide order dated 7.5.2019. On
14.5.2019, counsel for the C.B.I. did not
appear and the Special Public Prosecutor
appointed under Section 24 Cr.P.C. also
did not appear and, some of his junior
appeared.
This
Court
took
strong
objection to his appearance and, directed
3 All. Dr. Dev Nath Verma Vs. State
5
that the case to be listed on 28.5.2019. On
28.5.2019, it was directed that the matter
to be listed on 10.7.2019. On 10.7.2019,
the case was directed to be listed on
24.7.2019. On 24.7.2019, the case was
directed to be listed on 16.8.2019. On
16.8.2019, Lawyers were on strike and,
the case was directed to be listed in the
next cause list. Again on 21.8.2019
Lawyers were on strike and, therefore, the
case was directed to be listed in the next
cause list. On 28.8.2019, the case was
directed to be listed in the week
commencing 16.9.2019. On 16.9.2019
learned counsel for the petitioner sought
adjournment, however, learned counsel
for the C.B.I. was present and, the case
was directed to be listed on 30.9.2019. On
30.9.2019, the case was directed to be
listed on 19.10.2019. On 19.10.2019, an
adjournment was sought on behalf of the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the
ground that he was unwell. In view
thereof, the matter was directed to be
listed on 31.10.2019.

7. Two very disturbing factors
emerge from the narration of the orders
passed in the present petition. Interim
order initially granted on 3.6.2004 was
limited upto 19.7.2004, which was not
extended on 19.7.2004 when the matter
was listed or thereafter. However, the trial
court did not proceed to frame charge
against the petitioner. Despite having
dismissed the discharge application, there
having no order by this Court after
19.7.2004. It appears that while directing
the matter to be listed in the next cause
list, vide order dated 19.8.2009 i.e. after
five years from the date when the interim
order dated 3.6.2004 got expired on
19.7.2004, it was directed that the interim
order, if any, should continue till the next
date of listing of the petition. The case
was listed thereafter, on 31.8.2009, but
the interim order was, however, not
extended. Vide order dated 21.2.2011, it
was specifically made clear that the
interim order granted earlier was not
extended. However, vide order dated
21.11.2011, it was directed that the
interim order, if any, would continue till
the next date of listing. On 19.12.2011,
the case was adjourned on the ground of
illness of learned counsel for the
petitioner and, it was directed that the
matter to be listed in the second week of
January, 2012, but the interim order was
not extended. Again the interim order,
which was extended vide order dated
21.11.2011 till the next date of listing i.e.
19.12.2011, was extended vide order
dated 16.7.2019 i.e. after six and half
years. On 16.7.2019, it was directed that
the case to be listed on 18.7.2019 and the
interim order, if any, should continue till
then. Thus, after 18.7.2019 there had been
no order on the order-sheet extending the
interim
order
when
the
case
was
dismissed on 27.2.2019. Despite there
being no interim order, this Court is
baffled to find out that why the trial court
did not frame charge and proceed with the
trial for all these years. The second aspect
of the matter, is that as and when the
matter was listed and, it was likely to be
taken up for hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner has sought adjournment
either on the ground of illness or he was
on sanctioned leave. It is only when this
Court made it categorically clear in no
uncertained terms vide order dated
19.10.2019 that the case would not be
adjourned on any ground on 31.10.2019,
the learned counsel for the petitioner
finally addressed the argument. In view of
the aforesaid facts, this case remained
pending for more than 15 years before
this Court.
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. The purpose of mentioning the
orders available on the order-sheet in
detail is to highlight the manner in which
the parties take up a case for hearing
before this Court after an interim order is
granted. From 3.6.2004 till 31.10.2019
when this Court made it clear in no
uncertained terms that the case would not
be
adjourned
on
any
ground
on
31.10.2019, finally, learned counsel for
the petitioner has made his submissions.
Before this date, the order-sheet is only of
adjournment of the case. This is the
precise cause of huge pendency in this
Court. It is expected from the Bar and the
Bench to see that the precious time of the
Court is not wasted in this manner, in
which the matter gets adjourned on every
date for 15 years. Listing of the case
before the Court requires human efforts
by several persons and, it consumes the
time of counsels representing the parties
as well as of the Bench and, therefore, it
is expected that whenever the matter is
listed, the counsels should make an
endeavour to have fructified hearing.
Once, interim order is granted, the
endeavour should not be to continue the
interim order in perpetuity without final
hearing of the matter. This Court expects
from the Bar that its members should
come prepared to argue the cases and not
to seek adjournment only in order to
perpetuate the interim order and keep the
matter alive in the Court. This does not
augur well for justice delivery system.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The
responsibility lies on the shoulder of the
Bar as well as on the Bench to see that the
cases which come before the Court, are
decided at the earliest.

9. The facts of the present case, in
brief, are that the petitioner and his wife
Smt. Savita Devi filed Writ Petition
No.155 (MB) of 1996 before this Court
alleging that the petitioner, a doctor
(BAMS degree holder) and his wife were
peace loving citizens of the country. One
Phool Kumari executed a Will in favour
of them on 2.2.1994 in respect of House
No.142 situated at Mohalla Idgah, District
Lakhimpur Kheri and, after the death of
Phool Kumari, the petitioner and his wife
became the absolute owner of the said
house. Their application for mutation was
also decided in their favour vide order
dated 10.10.1995 by the Executive
Officer,
Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
Lakhimpur Kheri. A copy of the Will and
the alleged order dated 10.10.1995 were
placed on record as Annexures No.1 and
2 to the petition.

10. It was further alleged that in the
year 1992 one Nanga Ram and his sons
Ram Saran, Jas Karan and Rajendra
Prasad took forcible possession of the
house of Phool Kumari. Phool Kumari
and the petitioner approached the police
authorities
including
the
District
Magistrate. The administrative authorities
directed that Nanga Ram and others be
evicted from the house. It was said that
after the house got mutated in the name of
the petitioner and his wife, they had been
living in the said house. However, Ram
Saran, Jas Karam and Rajendra Prasad
were threatening the petitioner and his
wife to vacate the house and transfer the
same in their name, otherwise they would
face serious consequences. It was said
that the petitioner on 6.1.1996 had
approached
the
District
Magistrate,
Superintendent of Police and the Station
House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Lakhimpur
Kheri fearing untoward incident by Ram
Saran and others inasmuch as they were
trying to dispossess the petitioner and his
wife from the house forcibly. It was said
3 All. Dr. Dev Nath Verma Vs. State
7
that no action was taken on the said
application and, instead the petitioner was
called by the Station House Officer at the
police station and was asked to show the
papers of the house. The petitioner
showed all the papers to the Station
House Officer. The petitioner was made
to sit at the police station. It was further
said that in the meantime, his son Amit
came to Kotwali along with few other
persons of the locality and informed that
Ram Saran, who was an Ex-MLA and his
two brothers Jas Karan and Rajendra
Prasad along with number of persons, had
come to the house of the petitioner and
were taking away all belongings and, they
were also assaulting the family members
of the petitioner. It was said that the
petitioner requested the Station House
Officer to take appropriate action, but of
no avail. The petitioner came to know that
it was all done in collusion with the police
and on instructions of high ups. No action
was taken even when the petitioner
approached the District Magistrate as well
as
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Lakhimpur Kheri, neither FIR was
lodged. It was said that the police was not
acting because of political pressure and
was the hands in glove with the Ex-MLA.
A prayer was made in the petition for a
mandamus/direction to register an FIR on
the basis of the complaint given regarding
the incident, which took place on
10.1.1996.

11. This Court vide order dated
19.1.1996 directed the Station House
Officer,
of
Police
Station
Kotwali,
Lakhimpur Kheri to remain present
before the Court on the next date of
listing of the petition i.e. 22.1.1996 along
with relevant record. On 22.1.1996, the
Court directed the Station House Officer
to file an affidavit in response to the writ
petition. It appears that the Station House
Officer on 21.1.1996 passed an order for
registration of the FIR and, thus, the FIR
came to be registered on 21.1.1996 at
3.15 PM at Police Station Kotwali,
Lakhimpur Kheri on the compliant of the
petitioner dated 10.1.1996. On 21.8.1996,
the Court passed an order in the aforesaid
writ petition holding that the local police
had failed to discharge its primary duty of
investigating of the two FIRs and,
therefore, the case was directed to be
investigated by the C.B.I. It was further
directed the C.B.I. would investigate the
allegations made by the petitioner in the
FIR besides the following points should
also be investigated by the C.B.I.:-

"(i) Who was in possession on
6.1.1996 of the premises in dispute when
the report Annexure-3 to the writ petition
was lodged by one of the petitioners?

(ii) Whether the petitioners
were forcibly dispossessed and the house
was grabbed by Sri Ram Saran with the
aid and connivance of the District
Administration and/or police personnel of
P.S. Kotwali Lakhimpur Kheri ?

(iii) To get the complete file of
the record referred to above traced out
and forward it along with the report to
this Court. In case the complete record is
not traced out, the reasons thereof."

The C.B.I. was directed to
submit its report in a sealed cover within
two months. The case was directed to be
listed on 4.11.1996 for further orders.

12. Thus, in the manner, the FIR
registered at Case Crime No.86 of 1996
on 22.1.1996 under Section 395 IPC
against Ram Saran, Jas Karan and
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajednra Prasad was transferred to the
C.B.I. in pursuance of the order of the
Division Bench of this Court dated
21.8.1996 passed in Writ Petition No.155
(MB) of 1996 and, it was registered as
CBI case on 11.9.1996. The C.B.I.
undertook the investigation. It appears
that the C.B.I. conducted the investigation
and
Deputy
Superintendent,
CBI,
Lucknow submitted a detailed report
pointing out that the petitioner was not in
possession of the house on 6.1.1996 and,
neither he was dispossessed on 10.1.1996
as alleged or otherwise. The C.B.I. also in
its report said that record showed that no
proceedings took place after 23.9.1992
and, the contention of the petitioner was
not borne out from the record. The C.B.I.
in its report further said that the alleged
Will was forged Will. In view of the
aforesaid report, this Court dismissed the
writ petition summarily on the ground
that there was no occasion for the Court
to interfere in the controversial facts. The
C.B.I. and parties were given liberty to
take consequential legal proceedings.

13. After dismissal of Writ Petition
No.155 (MB) of 1996 by a Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated
4.8.1997, the Additional Registrar of this
Court filed a complaint under Section 195
Cr.P.C. in the court of Special Judicial
Magistrate, CBI, Lucknow alleging that
in the investigation of the C.B.I. which
was carried out in pursuance of the order
of this Court dated 21.8.1996 would
establish
that
the
compliant
dated
6.1.1996 (Annexure-III to the petition)
and complaint dated Nil (Annexure-IV to
the writ petition) of Writ Petition No.155
(MB) of 1996 on the basis of which Case
Crime No.86 of 1996, under Sections 395
IPC was registered on 22.1.1996 at Police
Station Kotwali, Kheri were found to be
false and fabricated. It was further said
that the investigation conducted by the
C.B.I. by collecting oral, documentary
and circumstantial evidence would show
that Dr. Dev Nath Verma, the petitioner
and his family were not in possession of
House No.142, situate at Mohalla Idgah,
Lakhimpur Kheri during January, 1996
and his belongings/property were neither
forcibly removed nor were looted by Sri
Ram Saran and his brothers Jas Karan and
Rajendra Prasad along with 10-12 persons
on 10.1.1996 as alleged or otherwise. It
was further said that investigation also
disclosed that House No.142 at Mohalla
Idgah, Lakhmpur Kheri belonged to late
Smt. Phool Kumari and, the Rent Control
and Eviction Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri
vide order dated 30.7.1986 had allotted
the said house to late Sri Nanga Ram,
father of Ram Saran and others, who took
possession
of
the
said
house
on
14.8.1986. Against the order passed by
the Rent Control and Eviction Officer,
Lakhimpur Kheri, Smt. Phool Kumari
filed revision before the IIIrd Additional
District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, who
vide oder dated 23.9.1992 remanded the
case to the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer with direction that the case be
heard afresh. It was also said that the
evidence
collected
and
investigation
carried out by the C.B.I. revealed that the
allegations levelled by the petitioner in
his complaint regarding the incident of
10.1.1996 were found to be completely
false.

14. It was also said that in pursuance
of the order dated 23.9.1992 passed by
the IIIrd Additional District Judge in the
revision filed by Smt. Phool Kumari, no
hearing had taken place before the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer. It was said
that the contention Dr. Dev Nath Verma,
3 All. Dr. Dev Nath Verma Vs. State
9
the petitioner that in January, 1994 an
application was moved on behalf of Smt.
Phool
Kumari
before
the
district
authorities
for
restoration
of
the
possession
of
the
house
and,
the
possession of the entire house was again
restored to Smt. Phool Kumari in the last
week of January, 1994 were wholly false
and incorrect. There was no such order
reflecting listing of the case in January,
1994 and the assertions made by the
petitioner in his affidavit were found to be
completely false. It was also said that
assertions in the affidavits of the
petitioner and his wife Smt. Savita Devi
that on the basis of the Will purportedly
executed on 2.2.1994 by Smt. Phool
Kumari
and,
the
certificate
dated
27.2.1994, House No.142 got mutated in
their favour on 10.10.1995 in the records
of Nagar Palika Parishad, were incorrect,
false and fabricated.

15.

The
investigation
had
established that the alleged Will deed
dated 2.2.1994 was neither registered nor
authenticated by notary pubic. It was a
forged, false and fabricated Will. The
Central Forensic Science Laboratory vide
report
No.CFSL-97/D-99/937
dated
31.3.1997 had opined that the finger print
impression appearing on page-1 of Will
dated 2.2.1994 was not that of late Smt.
Phool Kumari. Thus, the Will, which was
annexed with the writ petition, was forged
and fabricated document. It was further
said that Dilip Singh and Kunwar Bhanu
Pratap Singh, grand sons of Late Smt.
Phool Kumari had resolutely denied the
death of Smt. Phool Kumari on 27.2.1994
and, they had specifically said that Smt.
Phool Kumari died on 9.3.1994 in the
Medical College, Lucknow. The Birth
and Death Registrar of Nagar Nigam,
Lucknow too confirmed that Smt. Phool
Kumari died on 8.3.1994 at Lucknow. It
was further said that the averments made
in affidavit by the petitioner was full of
falsehood and, he deliberately attempted
to obfuscate the matter of ownership of
House
No.142,
Mohalla
Idgah,
Lakhimpur Kheri and, the averments
made in the writ petition were incorrect,
false and fabricated. It was further said
that a Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 4.8.1997 while dismissing the
writ petition summarily, directed the
concerned parties to take consequencial
legal proceedings. It was said that the
aforesaid
facts
would
disclose
the
commission of offence punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and, also
under Section 182/211 IPC. In view of the
aforesaid, a request was made to proceed
against the petitioner. The complaint was
filed in the official capacity of the
complaint as envisaged under Section 195
Cr.P.C..

16. Non-bailable warrant was issued
against the petitioner. The petitioner was
produced before the Special Judicial
Magistrate, CBI, Lucknow on 3.3.1998.
The petitioner, thereafter, moved an
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for
discharge on 18.6.1998 in Complaint
Case No.30 of 1998. The learned
Magistrate vide order dated 20.7.1998
rejected the discharge application of the
petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed
Writ Petition No.2648 (MB) of 1998.
However, the same was converted into a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
was numbered as 543 of 1998. This Court
vide judgement and order dated 8.3.2002
allowed the said petition on the ground
that the Division Bench in its order dated
4.8.1997 while dismissing Writ Petition
No.155 (MB) of 1996 had not directed for
filing of the compliant inasmuch as the
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court had neither recorded a finding to
the effect nor made a complaint thereof in
writing and, it was left open to the parties to
take consequential legal proceedings. It was
further held that the Registrar had no
authority to lodge the compliant under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. as there was no order
of the Court for lodging the compliant as
provided
under
Section 340
Cr.P.C.
However, it was observed that it would be
open to the CBI either to submit the charge
sheet or file a complaint in the court of
Special Judicial Magistrate. In view thereof,
the proceedings of Complaint Case No.30
of 1998 pending in the court of Special
Judicial Magistrate were quashed. It was
left open to the C.B.I. to file a complaint or
charge sheet as the case may be and, it was
said that in such proceedings bar of Section
195 Cr.P.C. would not apply inasmuch the
offence of forging the Will was a distinct
offence committed outside the Court
proceedings.

17. The C.B.I. thereafter, filed the
charge sheet dated 12.7.2002 in the case
against the petitioner finding that the facts
and investigation clearly disclosed the
commission of the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
and, also under Section 182/211 IPC. The
petitioner having been summoned, filed
an application for discharge before the
learned
Magistrate.
The
learned
Magistrate vide order dated 2.4.2003 had
held that there was sufficient material and
evidence available on record to attract the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and Section 182/211 IPC inasmuch as
the
petitioner
had
prepared
forged
documents to deceive, which included the
Will dated 2.2.1994, death certificate of
Smt. Phool Kumari and, he used these
documents in the court proceedings
alleging to be true and correct though he
knew that these documents were forged
and
fabricated.
Learned
Magistrate,
therefore, held that there was strong
suspicion against the petitioner for
producing the forged and fabricated
documents in the Court proceedings and,
held the application to be without any
merit and substance. The application was
dismissed and, it was ordered the case to
be listed on 21.4.2003 for framing of
charge.

18. The petitioner, thereafter, filed
revision before the court of Additional
District Judge, Court No.7, Lucknow
being Criminal Revision No.72 of 2003
against the order dated 2.4.2003 passed
by the learned Magistrate. The revisional
court said that considering the evidence
and material collected by the C.B.I.
during
investigation,
which
were
available with the charge sheet, including
the forensic science laboratory report in
respect
of
the
alleged
Will
dated
2.2.1994, at this stage on the basis of the
statement of some witnesses that the Will
was executed by Smt. Phool Kumari, the
petitioner could not be discharged. It was
said that the Will was in possession of the
accused and from the statement of the
grandsons of Smt. Phool Kumari, it was
clear that he forged the death certificate
of Smt. Phool Kumari as well. Learned
revisional court, however, partly allowed
the
revision
and
held
that
taking
cognizance against the accused under
Section 182/211 IPC was not correct. The
revisional court dismissed the revision in
respect of taking cognizance of the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 IPC inasmuch as there was
sufficient material available on record, on
the basis of which there was strong
suspicion against the petitioner for
commission of these offences.
3 All. Dr. Dev Nath Verma Vs. State
11

19. Heard Sri Nandit Srivastava,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Monoj Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned AGA, none
for C.B.I.

20. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that considering the
statement of the wittinesses recorded by
the C.B.I. under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no
offence is made out against the petitioner.
He
further
submits
that
attesting
witnesses have specifically stated that the
Will was executed by Smt. Phool Kumari
on 2.2.1994 in favour of the petitioner
and his wife. He has also tried to place
reliance on the statement of some of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. He submits that report of the
forensic science laboratory is an expert
opinion and, it cannot be relied upon
against the testimony of an eye witness.
He, therefore, submits that there is not
enough material and evidence on record
to form a prima facie opinion regarding
strong suspicion against the petitioner for
commission of the offence and, therefore,
the
orders
passed
by
the
learned
Magistrate as well as by the revisional
court are liable to be set aside. He has
also relied upon the judgements of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Arjan
Singh and others Vs. Hazara Singh,
1980 SCC (Cri) 309, Dilawsar Balu
Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002
SCC (Cri) 310 and Sajjan Kumar Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9
SCC 368.

21. On the basis of the aforesaid
judgements, he submits that the trial court
has cursorily passed the order though it is
required to weigh the evidence for limited
purpose of finding out whether a prima
facie case is made out against the
petitioner or not. He, therefore, submits
that considering the ratio laid down by the
Supreme
Court
in
the
aforesaid
judgements, the application for discharge
ought to have been allowed.

22.
I
have
considered
the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner carefully and perused the
record.

23.
The
C.B.I.
in
its
detail
investigation, has clearly opined that the
petitioner had forged the Will dated
2.2.1994 allegedly executed by Smt.
Phool Kumari. The C.B.I. has brought on
record the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory report in respect of the Will to
come to this conclusion. The death
certificate of Smt. Phool Kumari was also
forged by the petitioner, which is evident
from the certificate issued by the
Municipal Corporation, Lucknow and, the
statements of the grandsons of Smt. Phool
Kumari. The petitioner allegedly used
these documents so that he could occupy
the property of House No.142, situate at
Mohalla Idgah, Lakhimpur Kheri. When
the application for discharge is moved,
the trial court is not required to examine
and consider the evidence and material on
record in detail to form an opinion
whether, prima facie, case raising strong
suspicion against the petitioner for
commission of the offence is made out or
not. The trial court at this stage, is not
required to go in detail and weigh the
evidence
to
find
out
whether
the
conviction of the accused would be
secured in all likelihood. If the trial court
is of the opinion that there is sufficient
material and evidence on record, which
raises
strong
suspicion
against
the
accused for commission of the offence,
the trial court is required to proceed for
framing of the charge.
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In the present case, as mentioned
above, it cannot be said that there is no
evidence or material on the basis of which
no prima facie case against the accused is
made out to raise strong suspicion of his
involvement in the commission of the
offence.

25. The Supreme Court in the case
of State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of
Police Vigilance and Anti-corruption Vs.
N. Suresh Rajan and others, (2014) 11
SCC 709 has held that at the stage of
discharge, the court is required only to go
into the probative value of the material
and, it is not expected to go into deep the
matter to hold that the material should not
warrant conviction. What is required at
the stage of discharge is that if, the court
finds that, prima facie, the offence has
been committed, it can frame charge.

Paragraphs 29, 32.4, 33 and 34
of the aforesaid judgement are extracted
herein below :-

"29. We have bestowed our
consideration to the rival submissions
and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit
Kumar commend us. True it is that at the
time of consideration of the applications
for discharge, the court cannot act as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a
post office and may sift evidence in order
to find out whether or not the allegations
made are groundless so as to pass an
order of discharge. It is trite that at the
stage of consideration of an application
for discharge, the court has to proceed
with an assumption that the materials
brought on record by the prosecution are
true and evaluate the said materials and
documents with a view to find out whether
the facts emerging therefrom taken at
their face value disclose the existence of
all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court
is not expected to go deep into the matter
and hold that the materials would not
warrant a conviction.