Dismissed

Smt. Dhupa Devi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2019A482/16614/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants sought to quash proceedings for alleged forgery and cheating related to a disputed will deed and a pending civil suit. The High Court held that an offence was still made out and dismissed the quashing application.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the impugned orders was dismissed as an offence was made out.

Smt. Dhupa Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16614 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Dhupa Devi And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A., for the State.

¶6

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 16.11.2018 and 27.2.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Santkabir Nagar, as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1056 of 2016 (Sanwari Devi Vs. Shri Ram and others) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Menhdawa, District Santkabir Nagar.

¶7

As per version of the complaint, forged will deed was executed on behalf of Smt. Sanwari Devi in favour of applicant No. 1 (Smt. Dhupa Devi) and applicant No. 2 (Smt. Gyanmati) and Phulmati Devi daughters of opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Sanwari Devi). Smt. Sanwari Devi denied execution of the will deed. During her life time, on the basis of alleged forged will deed, names of applicant No. 1 (Smt. Dhupa Devi) and applicant No. 2 (Smt. Gyanmati) and Phulmati Devi were recorded in the revenue record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that for cancellation of sale deed executed by Smt. Dhupa Devi and Smt. Gyanmati, civil suit is pending between the parties. Opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Sanwari Devi) left her village and went to another village. Accordingly, no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶9

Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶10

From perusal of the complaint and material available on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶11

In result, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., stands dismissed .

¶12

However, if applicants apply for discharge after recording of evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the same may be decided by the trial court by speaking order.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.5.2019 Jaswant

Smt. Dhupa Devi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhupa Devi and 5 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Adneem Kumari Vs State of Up and Another

Rinku@Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Dhan Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jagannath Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atal Bajpai and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another