B. V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN
Anukul Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Application No. 3856 of 2004, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[For short, “Cr.P.C”] seeking quashing of the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No. 47 of 2003, registered at Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[For short, “IPC”].
3. According to the appellant, his father Shri Netrapal Singh purchased land admeasuring 8.592 hectares, situated in Khasra Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Village Sherpur Mafi, Tehsil Bilari, District Moradabad from one Akil Hussain by a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2000. After the purchase, the appellant’s father applied for mutation of the property in his favour. The vendor Akil Hussain did not raise any objection before the Tehsildar. However, the Shaher Imam of Bilari with mala fide intent to usurp t
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 [Paras 8.5
Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd, (2008) 13 SCC 678 [Paras 8.3
Rajiv Thapar v. Madal Lal Kapoor
Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam
Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others
Mukesh and others v. State of UP and others
Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within exclusive domain of trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
(1) Revenue records are not documents of title – Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.(2) A civil dispute may metamorphose into a criminal dispute.
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; a prima facie case must exist to avoid abuse of legal processes.
Civil disputes should not be criminalized; lack of fraudulent intent and delay in filing complaint vitiate criminal proceedings.
Criminal proceedings initiated primarily to convert a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution constitute an abuse of process of law.
The main legal point established is that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes, and the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used to prevent....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.