Puranlal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

Writ Petition No.17245/12.

2.11.2012 Shri O.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt.

Adv.for the State- respondents no.1 & 2.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ declaring the impugned sale deed dated 29.8.2012 executed by the respondent no.3 to 6 in favour of respondent no.7 to be abinito null and void.

In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to register a case of cheating against the respondents no.3 to 6 is also made.

Besides this, the prayer for appropriate direction to hold an enquiry against the erring Officer, is also made.

As per averments of the petition, as alleged the land of the petitioner by fabricating the false documents with the forged signature of the petitioner had been sold by the respondents no.3 to 6 to the respondent no.7 and on the allegation of such fraud, the petitioner has come to this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

In such factual matrix, the dispute involved between respondents no.3 to 6 and 7 is apparently a private dispute and for setting aside the sale deed on the ground of alleged fraud only Civil Suit may be the remedy because the alleged allegations are required appreciation after recording the evidence in the matter.

So, this question could not be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Besides this, out of the aforesaid respondents no.3 to 7, none has come under the State instrumentality defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

In such premises also, this petition could not be entertained for any purpose.

Apart the above, unless the case is examined by the appropriate Form or Court after recording the evidence, prima facie it could not be said that the respondents no.3 to 6, had committed any offence as stated by the petitioner and in such premises, no direction could be given to the authorities of the respondents no.1 & 2 to register the offence.

So, with respect of the above-mentioned last prayer also, this petition could not be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed.

At this stage, petitioner’s counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the Civil Suit on the available grounds for declaring the aforesaid sale deed to be ab-inito null and void and not binding against the petitioner and also seeks liberty to lodge the report in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the law.

Considering the aforesaid prayer, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberties as prayed by the counsel.

It is observed that on lodging any report with the State authorities with respect of any alleged criminal offence by the petitioner or on filing any Civil Suit by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and dealt with by such Court in accordance with the prescribed procedure without influencing from any observations or findings made by this Court in the present order.

Certified copy as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb