Dismissed

Riaz Mohammad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018A482/2348/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash proceedings under Section 420 IPC quashed Compt. No. 3655/9/2014 for serious factual disputes in land sale fraud case. Held that offence is made out and factual issues cannot be adjudicated in appeal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings refused. Directed that bail prayer shall be decided expeditiously if applicants surrender.

Riaz Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2348 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Riaz Mohammad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamla Kant Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,C.D.Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3655/9 of 2014 (Mushahid Hasan v. Riaz Ahmad and others) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Muzaffarnagar.

¶8

As per version of the complaint, on the place of Mushahid Hasan, opposite party no. 2, some imposter had executed registered sale deed on 07.02.2014 in favour of Riaz Mohammad, applicant no. 1 and Ali Mohammad, applicant no. 2. Ashraf, applicant no. 5 and Salman, applicant no. 6 were the witnesses who identified the imposter as Mushahid Hasan.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are the bone fide purchasers of the land in dispute. Fraud has been committed by property dealers Ali Shan and Irfan, after which they presented the complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar. No offence, whatsoever, is made out against the applicants.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned cognizance order dated 11.07.2015 passed by court below.

¶11

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶12

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed

¶13

questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 I. Batabyal

Riaz Mohammad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riaz Mohammad and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeru Chadda Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Braj Kishore Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Genda Rani @ Meva Kumari @ Meva Rani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madangopal Vs State of U.P. and Another