Back
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Pavnari Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| 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,
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
