SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 808

ANIL R.DAVE, AMITAVA ROY
MOHD. KHALID KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the common order dated 25th July, 2007, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos.462/2007 and 390/2007, the appellants have filed these appeals challenging the validity of the said order. By virtue of the impugned order, the applications filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been dismissed by the High Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and upon hearing them, we find that a Suit and a First Appeal are pending on the subject matter of the present litigation and the issue with regard to ownership of the land in question is yet to be finalised in the said Suit and in the First Appeal.

3. In the circumstances, we would not like to pass any observation which might adversely affect any of the parties in pending civil litigation.

4. Suffice it to say at this stage that while rejecting the applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court had considered certain facts which prima facie might not be correct. Some observations with regard to the oral gift (Hiba) have been made which, according to us, are not correc



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top