In a petition under Article 227 challenging orders rejecting an application under s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding a alleged fraudulent sale of land by a mentally impaired person, the court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the lower courts' reasoning.
The petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 25
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 291 of 2019
Petitioner :- Aadi Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Braj Mohan Singh,Sharafat Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has argued that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Aadi Ram against State of U.P. and others with this contention that he has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1390/11 of 2016, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.9.2016 before the court of C.J.M., Farrukhabad, and the same was rejected on 17.10.2016 without evaluating the documentary evidence and circumstances of case in which allegation of fraud committed by respondent nos. 2 to 6 was levelled that they got agricultural land of Kishan Lal, a person of poor mental condition, alienated in favour of respondent no. 6 without making payment of any consideration, by no application of judicial mind. This was raised in Revision No. 309 of 2016 before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, but the revisional court i.e. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Farrukhabad, vide order dated 6.9.2018 dismissed the revision, hence the Court of C.J.M. as well as revisional court committed gross error of law by means of which application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as revision were rejected, whereas the courts below were to see as to whether any prima-facie case was made out against the respondents or not. Both these orders are non-speaking and non-reasoned order. Hence, non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the C.J.M. Farrukhabad, and order dated 6.9.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, District Farrukhabad, was made.
Learned AGA opposed the petition with this contention that the land of real brother of the petitioner was alienated through registered sale deed in favour of respondent no. 6 and respondent no. 2 is the real brother of petitioner. No Court has yet held the deed otherwise or has declared the vendee to be of unsound mind.
It is admitted fact that the petitioner Aadi Ram is the real brother of respondent no. 2, Prem Chand and his other brothers were Kishan Lal and Vijay Singh in which Vijay Singh was a Lekhpal in the Tehsil concerned but has died. Kishan Lal was
recorded owner of agricultural land, which was got alienated by registered sale deed dated 11.3.2016 in favour of respondent no. 6. Medical papers of treatment of mental ailment of vendee Kishan Lal, prior to the date of execution of sale deed dated 11.3.2016, has not been filed on the record and from no civil court the alleged sale deed has yet been declared to be outcome of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence over vendee Kishan Lal. Kishan Lal has not filed any proceeding either before Civil Court or Revenue Court or police regarding alleged fraud, hence, the Magistrate in view of the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2015(SC) 1758 got truthfulness and veracity of the allegations made in the application verified from the police station concerned and found that the report was of baseless allegations, hence the Magistrate rejected the above application. This order was challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court by an elaborate and speaking order has dismissed the revision. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.
Moreso, the petitioner is neither the person, who has executed sale deed nor he was present at the time of execution of the sale deed. The execution of sale deed is by a registered deed executed before the Registrar and the respondent no. 2, who is the real brother of the vendee as well as petitioner. The land being said to be transferred is not of the petitioner. Hence this petition is of no force.
Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.1.2019 Pcl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders rejecting the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the revision
Whether the alleged sale of land by a person of poor mental condition without consideration warrants judicial intervention at this stage
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2015(SC) 1758 · Who else cites this
Aadi Ram
State Of U.P.
Prem Chand
Respondent no. 2
Respondent no. 6
Kishan Lal
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
