Allahabad High Court Court Quashes Supplementary Charge-sheet and Summoning Order in Land Dispute Case, No Offence Established Against Witness

In a significant ruling, Hon’ble Siddharth, J., delivered a judgment quashing the supplementary charge-sheet and summoning order in the case of Ajit Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another. The court held that further investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (IO) after the filing of the initial charge-sheet was permissible without prior permission from the Magistrate. Additionally, the court ruled that a witness of an agreement to sell cannot be held criminally liable unless there is an allegation of conspiracy. The judgment clarifies the scope of further investigation and the liability of witnesses in land dispute cases.

The court stated in its judgment, "Further investigation by the Investigating Officer is permissible after filing of a charge-sheet if further evidence is obtained. Prior permission of the Magistrate is not required. Witness of an agreement to sell cannot be held criminally liable unless there is an allegation of conspiracy. Agreement to sell does not create any right or title in favor of the witness."

The case revolved around a dispute over a property located in Kanpur Nagar, where Ajit Kumar Gupta, the applicant, and co-accused Narendra Kumar Singh were accused of illegally occupying the house of the complainant, who resided in the United States. The complainant alleged that the accused had fabricated documents to justify their occupation and that the applicant's name was mentioned in the agreement to sell without his signature.

The court further noted that the witness of an agreement to sell merely attests to the due execution of the document and does not have knowledge of its contents. In this case, the applicant's name was mentioned as an attesting witness in block letters without a signature. The court emphasized that no criminal liability could be attributed to the applicant as he had no interest in the property and was not in possession of it.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that no offence was made out against the applicant from the allegations and the relevant law pertaining to the execution of the agreement to sell. Consequently, the supplementary charge-sheet dated 28.8.2016 and the summoning order dated 28.9.2016 were quashed.

This judgment provides clarity on the powers of the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation and the limited liability of witnesses in land dispute cases. It establishes the principle that further investigation can be conducted without prior permission from the Magistrate and emphasizes the need for a clear allegation of conspiracy to hold a witness criminally liable in such matters.

Date of Decision: 14.6.2023

Ajit Kumar Gupta vs  State Of U.P. And Another