# Ram Saran Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 382
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-saran-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49342
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - - Constitution of India,
1950 - - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Criminal
Appeal - Discharge Application - Forged
11 All. Ram Saran Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
383
Will Deed - Civil Dispute - SC/ST Act
Applicability
The appellants challenged the order dated
30.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST
Act),
Barabanki,
rejecting
their
discharge
application in Sessions Trial No. 1137 of 2021,
arising from Crime No. 424 of 2021 under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The
appellants, a lawyer and his associate, claimed
they
merely
signed
a
will
deed
dated
27.10.2016 as witnesses, executed by Basant
Lal (allegedly deceased in 1978) in favor of coaccused Manish Kumar Verma, and argued the
dispute was civil in nature, involving a will
cancellation suit and mutation proceedings. The
respondents contended the appellants conspired
to forge the will, misrepresenting Basant Lal's
caste and death, supported by a 1978 death
certificate from Haryana. Held: (1) The appeal
was dismissed. (2) The trial court rightly
rejected the discharge application, as prima
facie evidence of forgery and conspiracy
existed, including the appellants' admission of
signing the will without verifying the executant's
identity,
and
the
1978
death
certificate
contradicting their claim. (3) The dispute's civil
nature did not preclude criminal liability, and
allegations under the SC/ST Act were supported
by evidence of caste misrepresentation. (4) The
trial court was directed to conclude the trial
within
one
year
without
unnecessary
adjournments, ensuring observations in the
appeal do not influence the trial.

## Text

382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
responsibility should be fixed on erring
authority.

15. I am unable to comprehend as to
why the order dated 10.10.2023 has been
challenged before the Apex Court inasmuch
as if the ground/reason challenging the
order was appropriate, reasonable and bona
fide, the authority should have not
requested before the Apex Court seeking
liberty to withdraw the SLP.

16. Therefore, prima facie, it is clear
that challenging the order dated 10.10.2023
before the Apex Court is nothing but
misuse of the process of the Court and
wasting the precious time of the Apex
Court, besides, is in utter disregard of the
specific guideines of the Government Order
dated 31.05.2017 (supra). Therefore, a
specific explanation is needed from the
opposite party no. 2, who was the petitioner
before the Apex Court as to why he has
challenged the order dated 10.10.2023
before the Apex Court instead of filing
affidavit of compliance before this Court
stating therein that the order of writ court
has been complied with in its letter and
spirit, inasmuch as had such fresh affidavit
of compliance been filed, the contempt
petition would have been dismissed.

17. List this case on 13.12.2023. On
that date, the opposite party no. 2 - Mr.
Naveen
Chandra,
Consolidation
Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,
7th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226001 shall appear in person
and he shall file his explanation on the
aforesaid observation.

18. In the meantime, Shri Abhineet
Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner shall
file his reply/objection to the second
affidavit of compliance.

19. It is made clear that any
appropriate order may be passed on the
next date after perusing the explanation so
filed by the authority concerned.

20. Let a copy of this order be placed
before the Chief Secretary, Government of
U.P., Lucknow, Principal Secretary/Legal
Remembrancer,
Department
of
Law,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow
and
opposite party no. 1, namely, Shri Sudhir
Garg, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue,
Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow for perusal and necessary action,
if so required, as per their wisdom, by the
Senior Registrar of this Court within three
working days.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 382
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1803 of 2021

Ram Saran Verma & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Dharmendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Mohammad Nauman, Osama Ahmad
Abbasi, Vijay Bahadur Yadav

Criminal Law - - Constitution of India,
1950 - - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - Criminal
Appeal - Discharge Application - Forged
11 All. Ram Saran Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
383
Will Deed - Civil Dispute - SC/ST Act
Applicability
The appellants challenged the order dated
30.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST
Act),
Barabanki,
rejecting
their
discharge
application in Sessions Trial No. 1137 of 2021,
arising from Crime No. 424 of 2021 under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The
appellants, a lawyer and his associate, claimed
they
merely
signed
a
will
deed
dated
27.10.2016 as witnesses, executed by Basant
Lal (allegedly deceased in 1978) in favor of coaccused Manish Kumar Verma, and argued the
dispute was civil in nature, involving a will
cancellation suit and mutation proceedings. The
respondents contended the appellants conspired
to forge the will, misrepresenting Basant Lal's
caste and death, supported by a 1978 death
certificate from Haryana. Held: (1) The appeal
was dismissed. (2) The trial court rightly
rejected the discharge application, as prima
facie evidence of forgery and conspiracy
existed, including the appellants' admission of
signing the will without verifying the executant's
identity,
and
the
1978
death
certificate
contradicting their claim. (3) The dispute's civil
nature did not preclude criminal liability, and
allegations under the SC/ST Act were supported
by evidence of caste misrepresentation. (4) The
trial court was directed to conclude the trial
within
one
year
without
unnecessary
adjournments, ensuring observations in the
appeal do not influence the trial.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar,
learned
Counsel
for
the
appellants,
Mohammad Nauman, learned Counsel for
opposite party No.2 and Shri Ashok Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the Stateopposite party No.1.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been
filed under Section 14 (A) 1 of the
Schedule
Castes
&
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989
against
the
impugned
order
dated
30.10.2021 passed by learned Special
Judge, (SC/ST Act), Barabanki, whereby
application for discharge No.-B-53 moved
by the appellant/accused in Sessions Trial
No.1137 of 2021 arising out of Crime
No.424 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. & Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, relating to Police
Station-Kotwali,
District-Barabanki
has
been rejected.

3. Counter affidavit filed today in the
Court by learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits the appellant No.1 is a practicing
lawyer, who has signed the will deed dated
27.10.2016 alongwith appellant No.2 as
marginal witness due to non-availability of
second witness, which was executed by one
Basant Lal in favour of co-accused,
namely-Manish Kumar Verma, in respect of
land Gata No.23/0.507, Gata No.35/0.315
situated
in
village-Faijullaganj,
Tehsil
Nawabganj, District-Barabanki. He further
submits that the executor of the said will
deed, namely-Basant Lal who was an old
age person and had died during treatment
on 18.11.2016 and the co-accused Manish
Kumar Verma after the death of Basant Lal
moved a mutation application before the
concerned
Tehsildar
on
01.12.2016.
Thereafter, cousin sibling of opposite party
No.2 has filed objection to the aforesaid
mutation
application
on
30.03.2017
claiming the will deed to be forged but the
Tehsildar having heard the parties and gone
through the record has allowed the
mutation application moved by co-accused
Manish Kumar Verma vide order dated
05.04.2019 rejecting the objection filed by
the cousin sibling of opposite party No.2.
Thereafter, the opposite parties being
aggrieved filed a civil suit for cancellation
of the said will deed in the court of Civil
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judge, Junior Division, Barabanki on
31.08.2019. He further submits that after
registration of F.I.R., the appellants have
challenged the same by way of W.P.
No.13182 (M/B) of 2021, in which this
Hon'ble Court having heard the parties has
stayed the arrest of the appellants vide
order dated 29.06.2021 till filing of charge
sheet. Thereafter, the Investigating officer
during course of investigation has recorded
statement of the complainant, in which he
repeated the allegation of first information
report but did not disclose fate of civil
litigation pending in between the parties
with regard to will deed. He next submits
that Investigating officer recorded the
statement of several witnesses who stated
that Basant Lal was residing at Haryana
and died forty years ago and they came to
know that co-accused, namely-Manish
Kumar Verma has got mutation of land on
the basis of forged will deed and per the
stand of the complainant, his grandfather,
namely-Basant Lal who died at Harayana
for last forty years ago even his land was
not mutated in the name of legal heir and as
per case of appellants, they signed the will
deed executed by the Basant Lal in their
presence on 27.10.2016, who later on died
on 18.11.2016 but Investigating Officer
without verifying the fact as to whether, the
person who executed the said will deed on
27.10.2016 and died on 18.11.2016 and has
filed
the
charge
sheet
against
the
appellants.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants
further submits that primarily the dispute
between the parties is civil in nature. he has
drawn attention of this Court to a civil suit
filed by the complainant for a relief of
cancellation of the said will deed. He
further submits that regarding mutation
certain litigation between the parties is
pending before the revenue court as well.
In light of the aforesaid submissions, it has
been argued that dispute between the
parties being civil in nature, the offences as
mentioned in the entire prosecution of the
appellants are not made out against them.
He further submits that there is no offence
against the appellants is disclosed and the
present prosecution has been instituted with
a malafide intention for the purposes of
harassment , thus, he submits that the
present appeal may be allowed and the
impugned order may be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
Counsel for opposite party No.2 have
opposed the prayer made by learned
Counsel for the appellants and submits that
a discharge application which was filed by
the appellants has rightly been rejected by
the court below vide impugned order dated
dated 30.10.2021. As there are credible
evidence available against the appellants,
thus, there is no illegality and infirmity
made by the court below. It is purely a
disputed question of fact. Prima facie, the
case is made out against the appellants and
if they are not involved in the alleged
offence, the trial court is competent to
adjudicate the matter. They further submits
that there is prima facie evidence available
against the accused appellants and only
probative value of evidence available on
record shall be looked into and no further
appreciation can be done by the trial court
if there is primary investigation available
against the accused appellants and in
furtherance of this the present criminal
appeal is filed only to use it as shield and
abuse the court process as being case of
SC/ST to escape arrest and not even today
accused appellants have come up before the
Learned Magistrate Court either applying
for regular Bail and they are even trying to
influence the trial by further delaying case
by using their influence and tactics to
11 All. Ram Saran Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
385
escape law to some how weaken the ample
evidence and gravity of covering the deeds
conducted by the Accused appellants one
who uses legal profession as a shield to
escape law while truth lies that Accused
appellant No.1 Ram Saran Verma is known
land grabber and has always being involved
in the property dealings by using forge
documents and then using them to gain
monetary
benefits.
There
are
ample
evidence against the accused appellants
which came during the investigation and
chargesheet submitted before the learned
trial court by the police, the accused
appellants are charged as co-conspirators
for property fraud by forging fake death
certificate of informants Grandfather as
well as showing Caste of dead Basant lal
not as Dhobi(SC) in state of Uttar Pradesh.
They further submits that in the grounds
mentioned in the appeal before this Hon'ble
Court under section 14-A SC/ST act
accused appellants have tried to basically
cover their offence by saying that they are
only witnesses in the will deed dated
27.10.2016 by one Basant Lal son of
Mahabali informant's grandfather who
already shifted much earlier to Haryana and
has been living there and died on
22.07.1978.

7. Learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 and learned A.G.A. further
submits that the accused appellants claim
that they have somehow signed the
document under an impression that the
imposter
executant
belong
to
Lodh
Community which do not fall under SC/ST
category, this shows the defence of meeting
the very condition of signing document
without proper knowing the executant and
appellant No.1 who says himself to be an
advocate this document without giving any
thought about consequences as he belongs
to category of property dealers and not real
practitioner. The second accused works for
appellant No.1 as his servant and this has
been admitted by appellant No. 2 while
giving statement to the police. They further
submits that the accused appellant No.1 has
also admitted by way of the affidavit filed
in support of the application that appellant
No.2 know him and he is entrusted to be
pairokar for Ram Pratap son of Bhagauti.
They further submits that appellant No.1 is
land grabber and property dealer who is
only engaged in outlook of grabbing
properties by using tactics and group of
hooligans by making sale deeds will deed
forgely and then getting them sold at high
rates to another for gaining monetary gain
and so far as to prove that the appellant
No.1 is regular practitioner he has not
placed before this Hon ble court any
evidence to support his claim. The claim of
non availability of witness is just being said
to misguide court and use it as defence for
proving their innocence. They next submits
that Basant lal Son of Mahabali has died at
Kurukshetra,Haryana and a true copy of
death certificate is already annexed as CA -
1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
opposite party No.2 where the date of death
is 22.07.1978 and this truly need to be
appreciated by the case diary record. They
next added that death certificate presented
by Manish Kumar Verma who is not an
appellant in the present appeal is forged
document by way of Annexure CA-3
before the Hon'ble Court Manish Kumar
Verma never challenged the impugned
discharge rejection and till date still neither
taken bail and nor being arrested by the
Police although NBW should have been
issued by the learned Special Court SC/ST
Barabanki. They draws the attention of this
Court to look that how a forged will was
made pre planned by the accused appellants
wherein the statement before the police of
co accused, appellant No.2 said that Basant
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lal told him that there is boy Manish
Kumar who serves me and I shall write will
in his favor although to counter the same
Manish kumar denies that Basant Lal
whom he knows belong to OBC and denies
the Claim raised by the informant cosiblings who objected to his mutation entry
before the Tehsildar Nawabganj, but the
fact is that Basant lal has already died at
Haryana by the Death certificate issued by
Haryana government is already before the
Hon'ble court and part of case diary.

8. Learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State
further submits that the appellants have
tried to misguide the Hon'ble Court as the
order dated 05.04.2019 was ex-parte order
first as objectioner have stopped appearing
before the Tehsildar and hence order was
passed in favor of Manish kumar Verma
who is not party in the present appeal and
this very same order was stayed by the
Tehsildar
when
present
informant
approached for recall and put actual facts
before the Tehsildar along with Lekhpal
Report,
thereafter,
the
concerned
Tehsildar
after
going
through
the
material placed on record stayed the
order dated 05.04.2019. They next
added
that
statement
recorded
by
independent witnesses which is filed by
the appellants it becomes quite clear
that independent witness Shareef son of
Mohd Shakoor Sunil Kumar son of
Puttilal are only persons who have known
the family of deponent and all other
person are living only for period 20
years and have no knowledge of the
Basant lal also the theory of Basant lal
being pujari is also claim of accused
appellants although they need to prove
that by facing trial and not at the stage
of Discharge application being moved
before Learned Trial court.

9. After considering the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and after perusal of the impugned orders
dated 30.10.2021 passed by the court
below. The impugned order were rightly
passed. The appellants claim that they have
somehow signed the document under an
impression that the imposter executant
belong to Lodh Community which do not
fall under SC/ST category, this shows the
defence of meeting the very condition of
signing document without proper knowing
the executant and appellant No.1 who says
himself to be an advocate, without giving
any thought about consequences as he
belongs to category of property dealers and
not real practitioner and further considering
the fact that the accused appellant No.1 has
also admitted by way of the affidavit filed
in support of the application that appellant
No.2 know him and he is entrusted to be
pairokar for Ram Pratap son of Bhagauti
and also considering the fact that Basant lal
Son
of
Mahabali
has
died
at
Kurukshetra,Haryana and a true copy of
death certificate is already annexed as CA -
1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
opposite party No.2 where the date of death
is 22.07.1978 and this truly need to
appreciated by the case diary record. There
appears force in the argument of learned
Counsel for opposite party No.2 that the
claim of non availability of witness is just
being said to misguide court and use it as
defence for proving their innocence and
also taking note of the fact that the
appellants have already approached the
court below by moving a discharge
application but the court below did not
entertain the prayer made by the appellants
and the court below after considering the
entire material, available before it, has
rightly rejected the discharge application,
thus, I do not find any illegality and
infirmity
in
the
impugned
order.
11 All. Subhadra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
387

10. Accordingly, this appeal lacks
merit and substance, which is hereby
dismissed.

11. However, keeping in view the fact
and circumstances of the case, the learned
trial court concerned is directed to get the
trial concluded within one year from today
with utmost expedition, without granting
any unnecessary adjournments to the
parties, in case there is no other legal
impediment.

12. It is made clear that the trial of the
aforesaid case shall be conducted without
being influenced by any observation made
herein above which are confined to the
disposal of the instant criminal appeal.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 387
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1929 of 2021

Subhadra ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashutosh Pathak, Avinash Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Illegible, V.K. Tripathi, Vinay Prakash Tiwari

Criminal Law - Constitution Of India, 1950
- - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(1) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 156(3) - Criminal Appeal -
Rejection
of
Application
for
FIR
Registration - Mala Fide Intention -
Counterblast Litigation
The appellant challenged the order dated
14.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(P.A.) Act, Lucknow, rejecting her application
under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., for registration of
an FIR against the respondents. The appellant
alleged an incident warranting an FIR, while the
respondents argued the application was a
counterblast to a prior case (Case Crime No.
741 of 2017 under Sections 326, 452, 147, 148,
323, 504, 506, IPC) filed against the appellant's
mother and brother, and a complaint case (No.
380 of 2018) filed by the appellant herself.
Held: (1) The appeal was dismissed. (2) The
trial court's rejection of the Section 156(3)
application was justified, as the appellant's
allegations in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the
application were improbable and unbelievable,
appearing as a mala fide attempt to falsely
implicate the respondents, including young
students, to ruin their careers and extract
financial benefits, leveraging her SC/ST status
against higher-caste respondents. (3) The
appellant's application was a counterblast to
existing litigation, aimed at pressuring the
respondents to compromise the case against her
family. (4) No illegality or infirmity was found in
the impugned order, which was reasoned and
upheld principles of natural justice and equity.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pathak, learned
counsel for the appellant, Ms. Chaaru
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the entire record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes
& Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
has
been
preferred against the impugned order
dated 14.10.2021 passed by learned
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act,
Lucknow,
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application No. 299 of 2021, under
Section
156
(3),
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow,
whereby application of the appellant
has been rejected.