Dismissed

Mohammad Abid v. Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018A227/7859/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of a criminal revision petition. The Court held that the complaint was correctly found barred by Section 195(1)(b) CrPC as it alleged forgery of a document produced in court proceedings, despite the petitioner claiming an imposter filed the original civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition under Article 227 was held sans merit and dismissed.

Mohammad Abid Vs Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7859 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Abid Respondent :- Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2015 (Mohammad Abid v. State of U.P. and others), dismissing the revision against the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai in Complaint Case No. 265 of 2015 (Mohammad Abid v. Surendra Bahadur Bhadauria and others), whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai held that the complaint is barred by provision of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code').

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that forged sale deed has been prepared outside the court. Accordingly, the complainant has right to file complaint and cognizance by Magistrate is not barred by provision of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code in the present case.

¶9

It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of compromise decree.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer so made and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

From the perusal of record, it reveals that as per allegation, case [O.S. No. 73 of 2006 (Mohammad

¶12

Abid v. Surendra Bahadur Bhadauria)] has not been filed by petitioner Mohammad Abid, but filed by an imposter on his behalf. In this case, statement of P.W.1 and compromise have also not been filed by the petitioner in the Court, but by an imposter on his behalf.

¶13

Accordingly, offence has been committed in respect of document produced in evidence in proceedings of civil court. As such, cognizance may be taken only on the complaint in writing by the court, as per provision of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code.

¶14

In view of above, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶15

The instant writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 15.11.2018 I. Batabyal

Mohammad Abid v. Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Abid v. Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asraf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Jayant Kumar Sircar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mata Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Awasthi and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

D. Manjunath and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another