Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Pavnari Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Nos. 2616, 2786 of 2012
Decided On : 22-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common order for related criminal revisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and sharing of property. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. claim of legal heirship and grounds for defense. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding wrongful loss. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. differentiation of criminal vs civil matters. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. criteria for defining false documents and forgery. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. judicial negligence in cognizance and reasoning. (Para 17) |
| 8. conclusion that offences not made out. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. quashing of trial and orders issued. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. 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. 797 of 2012, (State Vs. Raghvendra Pratap Singh @ Ankit and others) under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 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 Vs. Raghvendra Pratap Singh @ Ankit and others) under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 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 alongwith 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 alongwith 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 I.P.C.
6. Learned Magistrate on 20.6.2012 and 12.7.2012, passed impugned orders, which are transcribed in English as under:
“On 12.7.2012 - Today copies are received after preparation. Order- File be put up on 5.8.2012. Issue summ
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 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.
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....
Execution of sale deeds does not amount to forgery without clear intent; civil disputes should not be framed as criminal complaints.
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.
The concealment of prior ownership during a property sale constitutes prima facie evidence of cheating, while insufficient evidence exists for forgery charges.
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
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 ....
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
