IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Smt. Pavnari Devi and Others - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2616 OF 2012.
Decided On : 22-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision relates to prior judicial orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court assesses the validity of orders from lower courts. (Para 3) |
| 3. fir details and involvement of accused outlined. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments regarding illegality of the order presented. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. legal proceedings require clarity on offences established and rationale for accusations. (Para 7) |
| 6. cited case law distinguishes civil from criminal nature. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. legal principles from previous cases applied. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. accusation of forgery not substantiated. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. court finds lack of basis for previous orders. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 10. orders are quashed; proceedings dismissed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
By means of present criminal revision, the revisionists, have assailed the order dated 20.6.2012 and 12.7.2012, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, in Criminal Case No.Case no. 797 of 2012, ( State v. Raghvendra Pratap Singh @Ankit and others) under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC., P.S. Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj, arising out of Case Crime No.227 of 2012.
2. As both the criminal revisions have arisen out of same impugned order passed in Criminal Case no. 797 of 2012, ( State v. Raghvendra Pratap Singh @Ankit and others) under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC., P.S. Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj, therefore, both the revisions are being decided by this common order.
3. Heard the submissions of learned senior counsel Sri Gajendra Pratap, assisted by Sri S.P. Srivastava on behalf of the revisionists and Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Chaudhary and Sri Shiv Saran Singh, on behalf of opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. The facts arisen to file present criminal revisions are that the informant Manvendra Singh, moved an application on 2.2.2012 before the Court of CJM, Maharajganj, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., with prayer to direct the SHO, concerned to register a case and investigate the same. Learned CJM allowed the application vide order dated 25.2.2012 to register a case and investigation of same pursuant to the order of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, the present FIR was lodged on 17.3.2012, at 12:30 hours, wherein it is stated that plot no.148 measuring 0.210 hectare has four co-sharers, named, Devendra Singh (since deceased), Shivendra Singh, Manvendra Singh and Dharmendra Singh and each one of them has equal 1/4 share in it. That after the death of Devendra Singh his 1/4 share has devolved upon his wife Smt. Alka, son Raghvendra Pratap and daughter Km. Arunima and each of them have become co-sharer of 1/12. That the said heirs of deceased Dharmendra Singh have sold out excess land of their share by executing two sale deeds dated 19.4.2011 and 9.5.2011 in favour of accused Smt. Pavnari Devi. The execution of the said sale deeds amounts to commission of cheating and forgery causing wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to other three co-sharers. The marginal witnesses of the two sale deeds, i.e. Feku, Bhagat, Vishwanath and Phool Badan and Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Scribe of the said sale deeds along with lekhpal of the area, named as Madan Gopal also conspired in the commission of the said offences.
5. The FIR was lodged against Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Alka Singh, Arunima Singh, the heirs of late Devendra Singh, who were co-sharer of the informant along with Smt. Pavnari Devi (vendee), Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Scribe of impugned sale-deeds and Madan Gopal- Halka Lekhpal and marginal witnesses of sale-deed. The police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against ten named accused persons with prayer to prosecute them for charge under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 IPC.
6. Learned Magistrate on 20.6.2012 and 12.7.2012, passed impugned orders, which are transcribed in English as under:-
The execution of sale deeds by co-sharers exceeding their portion does not constitute forgery or criminal liability, reaffirming that such disputes are civil in nature.
Execution of sale deeds exceeding a co-sharer’s share does not constitute forgery or cheating, reaffirming that civil disputes should not be criminalized without clear offences being present.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to carefully consider the allegations of cheating and fraud, particularly in cases involving multiple parties and complex transactions. Th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that abetment and fraudulent execution of a sale deed constitute offenses under the Indian Penal Code, leading to conviction.
Execution of sale deeds does not amount to forgery without clear intent; civil disputes should not be framed as criminal complaints.
The concealment of prior ownership during a property sale constitutes prima facie evidence of cheating, while insufficient evidence exists for forgery charges.
The prohibition for a second FIR does not cover a second FIR, allegations of which are different although relating to the same incident. The concept of sameness in the context of multiple FIRs has be....
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 ....
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.