Disposed

Siyaram Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019CRLP/3821/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging forgery in revenue records, claiming he was a bona fide subsequent purchaser. Petitioners held that further investigation is needed to determine bona fides before accepting the quashing prayer. Investigation continues; petitioner not to be arrested pending FIR report unless non-cooperative.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; investigation to continue; petitioner not to be arrested pending police report under Section 173(2) CrPC subject to cooperation.

Siyaram Upadhyay Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3821 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Siyaram Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Vivek Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Jeet Kumar Pathak for the respondent no.4; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 08.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0006 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned First Information Report is that fabricated and forged entries in the revenue records were made to show claim over a piece of land and thereafter sale-deed of that land was executed.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the person in whose favour forged entries were made but the petitioner is the person who purchased the land from that person who was fraudulently recorded. It has been contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore his case is distinguishable from the other accused.

¶9

On 13.02.2019, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed:-

¶10

"The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is subsequent transferee and therefore he cannot be said to be guilty of the offences and his case is distinguishable from the main accused, who is stated to have illegally got his name entered in the revenue records and thereafter transferred the said property to the petitioner.

¶11

The matter requires consideration.

¶12

Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶13

Let notice be issued to the respondent no.4 fixing 15th April, 2019. By the next date, the respondents shall file their respective counter affidavits.

¶14

List this petition on 15th April, 2019.

¶15

Till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC, whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No.0006 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, police station Kotwali, district Ballia. It is made clear that this court has not stayed the investigation. "

¶16

Pursuant to the above order, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer stating that the prosecution case has been supported by the informant but the investigation is pending.

¶17

Considering that it would have to be determined in the investigation whether the petitioner had purchased land from a genuine person or a fictitious person as also whether the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value or is in conspiracy with the other accused, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report cannot be accepted because to ascertain all the above aspects, the matter would require investigation.

¶18

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to petitioner's co-operation in the investigation, petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case, till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.4.2019 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Siyaram Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyaram Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Kuldeep Tomar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jabar Singh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babbu Kaul Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Naushad @ Adwani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others