Dismissed

Ram Naresh Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019A482/10021/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from a civil dispute over a property sale, the court refused to quash the case despite pending civil suits and reliance on Govind Dayal, instead directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months and prohibiting coercive action against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Relief to quash criminal proceedings denied; trial court directed to expedite trial within six months; coercive action against applicants prohibited pending trial.

Ram Naresh Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10021 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Ghanshyam Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ganga Prasad,S.D.Gupta,Kartikey Saran

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anand Srivastava holding brief of Sri Kartikey Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.397/IX/2008, arising out of Case Crime No.712 of 2008, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mau, Chitrakoot, in pursuance of Charge Sheet No.118 of 2008 dated 20.11.2008, State Vs. Ram Naresh & Others,pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mau.Chaitrakoot.

¶8

Learned carousel for the applicants contended that the matter pertains to civil dispute and the applicants are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to party bandi between the family members.It is next contended that the opposite party no.2 moved an application under 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chirakoot on 4.9.2009 with the prayer to direct the concerned police station to register the FIR and and investigate the matter against the applicants in the aforesaid case. On the direction of the Magistrate the case was registered and report was submitted. Thereafter the Magistrate directed the concerned S.H.O.to register the FIR against the applicants and the same was registered. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate the applicants approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application No.28030 of 2008 which was disposed off on 1.10.2008 with the direction that in case the FIR has not been registered till that date, if it is lodged subsequently in pursuance of the impugned order, the applicants shall not be arrested during investigation of the case.

¶9

In brief the facts the case are that the opposite party no.2 executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant no.2 after the amount of consideration having been paid to the opposite party no.2 by the applicant no.2. After the execution of sale deed when the applicants took over the possession over the property in question they were restrained by Devi Dayal, Phool Chand Badkoo, Manoj, Alaf Narain and Man Singh. Thereafter the applicant no.2 filed Original Suit No.145 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Chitrakoot seeking permanent injunction and also application under order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 Cr.P.C. for temporary injunction. It is next contended that opposite party on.2 on the instance of Devi Dayal & others filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge(J.D.), Chitrakoot for cancellation of sale deed. Both the suits are still pending before the court concerned.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the reported judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Govind Dayal wherein it has been categorically held that if civil litigation is going on between the parties, no criminal proceeding can be initiated and it is completely an abuse of process of law ad as such criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶12

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the aforesaid case keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, provided the applicants cooperate with the trial.

¶13

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till the conclusion of the trial.

¶14

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 14.10.2019 IA

Ram Naresh Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Singh and 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

Rajendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taufiq Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Satish Kumar Gupta Vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.