Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Ati Ulla and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Fazar Mohammad and Another – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2647 of 2024, Matters Under Article 227 No. 9560 of 2024
Decided On : 12-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Writ petitions challenging orders under Section 340 Cr.P.C. - Petitioners failed to substitute legal heirs of deceased defendant, leading to application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. - Court set aside impugned order and directed reconsideration of the matter afresh. (Paras 18 and 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 - Parameters for initiating proceedings against false statements - Court must find deliberate falsehood and sufficient grounds for action, not mere inaccuracies. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions against orders related to a substitution application after the death of a defendant, which was delayed and led to a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
The order dated 09.08.2023 was set aside, directing the concerned court to reconsider the matter expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. based on the petitioners' alleged false statements regarding the substitution application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a prima facie opinion of falsehood and sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., as established in recent Supreme Court judgments.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma as well as Sameer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present Writ Petition No. 2647 of 2024 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:
(ii) Issue an order or direction of suitable nature set aside the entire proceedings of Misc. Case/Application No. 01 of 2018 (Fazar Mohammad & Another vs. Ati Ulla & Others) under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
3. The Writ Petition No. 9560 of 2024 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:
(ii) Issue an order or direction of suitable nature set aside the entire proceedings of Misc. Case/Application No. 01 of 2018 (Fazar Mohammad & Another vs. Ati Ulla & Others) under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid two writ petitions are being decided by a common order.
5. The Writ Petition No. 2645 of 2024 has been preferred by Ati Ulla and Ati Mohammad against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. preferred by Fazar Mohammad and another against the order dated 28.3.2022 passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
6. While the Writ Petition No. 9560 of 2024 has been preferred only by Ati Ullah against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in a revision preferred by the petitioner Ati Ullah against the order dated 28.3.2022 passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid remand order dated 09.08.2023, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the said order.
8. The matter, in brief, is that the respondents/defendants Fazar Mohammad and another moved an application on 09.10.2018 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in a declaration suit under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 pending before the Court of Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Ghaziabad.
9. In the aforesaid suit, one of the defendants Ummar Mohammad had died on 02.05.2015.
10. Despite having knowledge about the death of the defendant Ummar Mohammad, the plaintiffs (petitioners) did not move the substitution application to implead the legal heirs of Ummar Mohammad.
11. On 29.7.2015, the respondents-defendants moved an application for the abatement of the proceedings as the defendant Ummar Mohammad was already dead.
12. In the meantime, a suit for eviction bearing Suit No. 182554/2016 was filed by the legal heirs of Ummar Mohammad (dead) under Section 134 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 with a description about the death of Ummar Mohammad and the notices were issued to the petitioners (plaintiffs) who had filed the reply to the said no
The court emphasized the necessity of sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. based on false statements, requiring a prima facie opinion of deliberate falsehood.
Legal representatives of deceased parties can seek substitution; amendments to pleadings are permitted to promote effective adjudication and safeguard substantive rights over rigid procedural complia....
Amendment in plaint can be allowed at any stage of suit even before pronouncement of Judgment – Question of requirement of filing written statement cannot be assessed by court at this stage.
(1) Substitution – Limitation – Suit/appeal automatically abates when application to substitute legal representatives of deceased party is not filed within prescribed limitation period of 90 days fro....
The power under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or miscarriage of justice.
Legal heirs must comply with procedural requirements for substitution in criminal proceedings following the death of the original complainant.
The power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised when an alternative remedy exists under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court emphasized a justice-oriented interpretation of procedural laws, allowing substitution of legal heirs even in cases of certain delays without mandating separate applications for abatement.
The court ruled that applications for substitution and condonation of delay can be combined, emphasizing that procedural law should serve justice rather than punish parties, thereby validating the su....
The High Court under Article 227 should exercise supervisory powers cautiously, not substituting lower court decisions unless grave injustice is demonstrated.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
