SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Gopal Dass – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code") has been invoked seeking quashing of FIR No. 77, dated 23.06.2010, under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case unfolds with admitted facts reflecting the execution of Will way back on 14.04.1937 by Banu Mal in favour of this daughter Munni Devi bequeathing the entire estate in her favour. Thereafter, the second Will came into being also executed by Banu Mal dated 27.03.1943 in favour of Raghubir Singh father of Devi Sarup giving only a life estate and also to treat Munni Devi as his daughter in the said Will and binding Raghubir Singh to pay an amount of Rs.100/- to Munni Devi for each harvest out of the income from the said property. The Will further consisted of the rights to be bequeathed of entire property to the legal heirs of Munni Devi, after the death of Raghubir Singh. On 26.02.1954, mutation No. 1427 was
Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh (2006) 1 SCC 148)
Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. (1969) 2 SCC 201
Bijayanandan Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu (1964) 2 SCR 538
Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration
Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (D) by IRs v. B. D. Aggarwal (2003) 6 SCC 230
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah
K.Venkatachala Bhat v. Krishan Nayak (d) by L. RS (2005) 4 SCC 117
Kashmir Singh v. Union of India (2008) 7 SCC 259
Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar
P Rajagopalv. State of Tamil Naidu (2019) 5 SCC 403
P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu
R. Ramamurthy Ayer v. Raja V. Rajeshwara Rao (1972) 2 SCC 721
R. Rathinavel Chettiar v. V. Sivaraman (1999) 4 SCC 89
R.K. Vijayasarthy v. Sudha Seetharam; (2019) 16 SCC 739
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
The court affirmed that civil disputes do not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of forgery and that both can arise from the same facts independently.
The existence of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution for allegations of forgery, as distinct standards apply to criminal and civil liability.
The mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations disclose crimes, and the delay in filing a complaint does not negate the need for investigation.
The court established that allegations of forgery and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing for criminal proceedings to continue.
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.