Dismissed

Tanveer Fatima and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019A482/14930/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of complaint and summoning order in a cheating case, the Court refused the prayer holding that disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and gift deed execution cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashment of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refused. Applicants granted temporary protection from coercive action for 30 days conditioned upon appearance for bail.

Tanveer Fatima and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14930 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Tanveer Fatima And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Nirvikar Gupta,Rajan Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Surendra Nath Tripathi,Syed Ashraf Ali,Syed Mohammad Nazar Bokhari

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Syed Mohammad Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application and quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 232 of 2012, u/s 420 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar and also quash the summoning order dated 28.2.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 232 of 2012.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated. There is a civil suit pending between the parties i.e. Civil Suit No. 1398 of 2013, which is at page 30 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit but no such document is not found on record. The matter is of civil nature, hence criminal proceedings cannot be launched, therefore the summoning order needs to be quashed. He further submits that if the proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the summoning order and argued that House No. 86-D, Defence Colony, Kanpur Nagar was owned by three persons, namely accused-applicant no. 1, Tanveer Fatima, accused-applicant no. 2, Rukaiya Jamal, and opposite party no. 2, Najma Jamal. The gift deed of the said property belonging to opposite party no. 2 has been executed by accused-applicant no. 2 in favour of accused-applicant no. 1 without having any right, illegally. The said property was also pledged with the bank, hence the same could not have been gifted.

¶10

I have gone through the record.

¶11

As per complaint, the owner of House No. 86-D, Defence Colony, Kanpur Nagar is owned jointly by accused-applicant no. 1, Tanveer Fatima, and the opposite party no. 2, Nazma Jamal, and both of them are in possession of the same on half portion each. Accused-applicant no. 1, Tanveer Fatima, had executed a gift deed without consent of the opposite party no. 2 of 118 square yards area out of total area of 356 square yards of the said house, while opposite party no. 2 never executed any such gift deed. Accused-applicant no. 2, Rukaiya Jamal, in collusion with accused-applicant no. 1, Tanveer Fatima, had also got the said property mutated in Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, regarding which, opposite party no. 2 could come to know only when the tax was to be paid for the year 2012. Further it was mentioned that the said property was pledged to the Bank of Baroda because of which the same could not have been gifted. After recording statements of witnesses, the accused-applicants have been summoned to face trial under the above mentioned section. The veracity of the aforesaid statements cannot be dis-believed at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial

¶12

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶14

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear

¶15

before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 10.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

Tanveer Fatima and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanveer Fatima and 3 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

Laxmi @ Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Sahdev Mukherjee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Shakeel Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dr. Kushal Pal Deshwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Vs State of U.P.and Another