SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2451

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Revisionist : S.P. Srivastava, Gajendra Pratap.
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate, A.P.Tiwari, B.K.Tripathi, Manoj Kumar, Rahul Chaudhary, S.S. Tripathi, Shiv Sharan Singh.

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 - Criminal Revision - Challenge against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The revisionists alleged wrongful prosecution under IPC for selling property exceeding share. The court found no offence as execution of sale deeds does not constitute forgery, reaffirming that such claims belong to civil disputes. (Paras 10, 16, 19)

(B) Cognizance - The trial court failed to provide reasoning for taking cognizance against accused. (Paras 7, 18)

(C) Civil Nature of Disputes - The court emphasized that matters of land ownership disputes are essentially civil in nature and cannot attract criminal liability under the IPC. (Paras 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
Accusations arose from the sale of land by co-sharers, alleging illegitimate sale of surplus land to a third party, involving co-accused as facilitators.

Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations insufficient to establish criminal liability, noting the charges filed were not substantiated.

Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of actions taken under IPC for what constituted a civil matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Without constituting an offense of forgery or cheating, cognizance taken was held to be flawed and unsustainable under law.

Result: Criminal revisions allowed, impugned orders set aside.

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:-

    "On 20.6.2012- Today charge-sheet received. Cognizance taken. Order- Is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top