Partly allowed

Narayan Das and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2018A482/15275/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court refused to quash the FIR and charge sheet arising from a property dispute. The court held that disputed questions of fact, including the validity of alleged fraud and pending civil suits, could not be adjudicated under Section 482 as a prima facie case existed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Directions issued for applicant to surrender within 30 days to avail a hearing on bail.

Narayan Das and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15275 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Narayan Das And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajnish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 10.4.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 101 of 2017 (State Vs. Narayan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1264-A of 2014, under Sections- 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 467, 427, 420, 468, 471, I.P.C., Police Station- Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature inasmuch as in respect of the sale deed claimed by the opposite party dated 18.2.2005, the applicants had instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed which is still pending. It has also been submitted that the land had been declared surplus under Urban Ceiling and certain proceedings were pending. Subsequently, on 13.9.2013, the land was released in favour of the applicants. It is at that stage that applicants executed certain sale deeds and constructions were being made on the land which were illegally interfered with by an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 17.10.2013. The said order became subject matter of the proceedings in Writ-C No. 64745 of 2013. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 30.5.2014 wherein it was observed as under:

¶9

"Insofar as the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner impugned in this writ petition is concerned, we find that this is an order passed on the administrative side. Since the rights of the parties are under adjudication in the civil suit we do not find any justification to continue with the order dated 17.10.2013 for the reason that any order passed by the Civil Court could be in contradiction of any orders passed by the Commissioner on the administrative side. Moreover when the dispute between the parties is before the Civil Court the Commissioner's order cannot be permitted to have the effect of affecting any rights or possession

¶10

of the parties which has to be determined exclusively by the Civil Court.

¶11

Moreover, it is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the inquiry which was constituted has since been completed and therefore insofar as the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 is concerned, it has lost its efficacy and is no longer binding for exercising rights in the property. As such, the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly and as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is set aside."

¶12

Then it has also been submitted that the applicants are illiterate persons who had never executed a sale deed as claimed by the opposite party No. 2 and the prosecution allegations are nothing, but a bundle of lies.

¶13

It has further been submitted that applicants had also filed a suit for prohibitory injunction in which initially injunction has been granted. However, it is an admitted case between the parties that no injunction order operates as on date.

¶14

Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submits that the sale deed executed in favour of opposite party No. 2 dated 18.2.2005 is a registered document. There is no adverse order either interim or final passed by any civil court by which the aforesaid sale deed may have been cancelled or its effect may have been stayed. Then, it is submitted that the applicants having thus executed the sale deed have fraudulently executed further power of attorney in favour of applicant No. 4 who claims to have obtained release of the land from the Ceiling Authority and had thereafter executed certain sale deed in the year 2013..

¶15

Thus it has been submitted that once the registered sale deed had already been executed in the year 2005 in favour of the opposite party No. 2, the action on the part of the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 to execute fresh sale deed in respect of the same land through a power of attorney, is only a device to escape the liability on themselves, but in any case it is an offence as disclosed and the applicants have been rightly charge-sheeted.

¶16

The arguments advanced by the parties raised factual questions as to the execution of the original deed dated 18.2.2005. At present no conclusion can be drawn as to the genuineness or otherwise the sale deed as that would require evidence to be led before any firm conclusion can be arrived.

¶17

In any case, so far as it is not a dispute that the aforesaid documents dated 18.2.2005 is a registered document and the suit for cancellation of sale deed is still pending, there does not

¶18

arise any presumption in favour of the applicant that the said document is forged or fabricated.

¶19

It has been brought to the notice of the Court that in that FIR lodged by the applicants alleging that the sale deed dated 18.2.2005 is a forged document, investigation is still pending, it is clear that merely because a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed is pending, it would also not give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants.

¶20

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶21

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.

¶22

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶24

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 Ravi Prakash

Narayan Das and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Das and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navab Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Badshah Alias Jamaluddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Akhtar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Srikrishna Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Naveen Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.