Allowed

Gyan Prakash and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 May 2019A482/13868/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes criminal proceedings initiated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from a dispute over a will and property possession. The court held that the controversy involves a civil dispute regarding property partition and does not require penal action, thus allowing the quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in case No.9792 of 2019 initiated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC were quashed.

Gyan Prakash and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13868 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gyan Prakash And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Shri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi (Sr. Adv.)

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhai Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of this application.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the chargesheet dated 27.02.2019 by which Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance on 11.03.2019 in case no.9792 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.3651 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶8

The controversy involved in this case is 'will' in question, which was executed on 29.12.2004, whereas the testator- Shiv Charan was died on 2nd December 2005. There are five sons and one wife surviving him. Later on in the year 2013, one of the sons of the deceased- Satish- (one of the real brother of the applicants) sold out his share to opposite party no.2 (Narendra Singh) on 08.01.2013, who is the present complainant.

¶9

Now, the point is that complaint was filed that the present applicants in collusion with her sons had fabricated a false will and is trying to

¶10

dispossess the opposite party no.2 of his rightful possession dis-entitling him to be owner of the share of the purchaser through the sale- deed executed in the year 2013.

¶11

Also heard the learned A.G.A.

¶12

In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact situation, urge is that this is a civil dispute. Admittedly, the deceased/testator left behind the entire property to his wife. Now, the point is that one of the share holders is son of the deceasedSatish- sold out his share of the property and the applicants have no objection, if the undivided property is partitioned and the share sold out to opposite party no.2 is given in his possession.

¶13

To this contention, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection. He agrees to the same extent that his share purchased by him should be duly given to him and he has no objection.

¶14

Opposite party no.2 submits that he is already in possession of the property but he is being disturbed in his possession by the other side, namely, the present applicants, regarding which the complaint has been moved.

¶15

However, in the backdrop of the scattered facts of the case, the case has within its background civil opening, which for the time being, does not demand any penal action, and considering the nature of the complaint that it is purely of civil nature, the same cannot allow to stand on.

¶16

However, if the respondent has any grievance regarding disturbance in his possession created by the applicants side then for such trivial matters, the things should not be resorted to by filing complaint like the present one instead the

¶17

concerned Administrative Authority particularly the City Magistrate of the district/area should be approached by moving proper application and in case the proper application is so moved, the authority concerned is duty bound to look into the matter to restore peace of the area as well as due right to the applicant.

¶18

In view of above, entire criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 27.02.2019 by which Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance on 11.03.2019 in case No.9792 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.3651 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

¶19

The instant application is, accordingly allowed.

¶20

This quashing will be without prejudice to the opposite party no.2 to take his remedies available to him at large.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.5.2019

¶22

Raj

Gyan Prakash and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Prakash and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Triveni Prasad @ Triveni Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Agra Sales and Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prem Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Raj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brij Mohan Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another