SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Gopal Dass – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of fir requires clear factual basis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. civil suit outcomes affect fir validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. delay in registering fir raised for consideration. (Para 8 , 12 , 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. arguments focus on delay and previous litigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. maintaining that findings of civil court are non-binding. (Para 19 , 21 , 23) |
| 6. disputed facts must be resolved through evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. inherent powers of court in quashing fir not absolute. (Para 36 , 38) |
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. Thereaft
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 ....
(1) Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment and coercion in disputes concerning title over immovable property.(2) When a person execut....
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.
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.