Dismissed

Mohd. Zaki and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020A482/10667/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and cognizance order. The court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and the petitioners failed to demonstrate abuse of process or harassment.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed; charge-sheet and cognizance order remain.

Mohd. Zaki and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10667 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Zaki And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Bilal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava for the applicants, Sri Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA.

¶7

Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge-sheet no. 123 of 2019 dated 20.05.2019 and its cognizance order dated 28.02.2020 in a case arising out of Case Crime No. 370 of 2018 (State vs. Smt. Rajda and others) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station-Mandawar, District-Bijnor pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC, Bijnor, on the ground that the informant Ajmal alleged that Zahid Hasan was his uncle, who went missing. Accused persons got prepared a fake death certificate of Zahid Hasan and succeeded in getting name of Rajda entered in revenue records as legal heirs of Zahid Hasan and thereafter executed a sale deed in favour of Mohd. Zaki. This sale deed has been signed by petitioner no. 2- Abdul Wasi as a witness.

¶8

It is submitted that there is no element of criminality in the act of the accused persons and therefore, as no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants, impugned FIR and all consequential actions namely, charge-sheet and order of cognizance needs to be quashed.

¶9

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant, in their turn, submits that applicants have not presented complete facts in the matter. It is submitted that during survival of the registered owner of the land declaring him to be dead and getting such valuable security transferred in the name of Rajda in collusion with others and thereafter transferring the same in favour of the present applicants as a foundation of conspiracy besides cheating and criminal breach of trust.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going

¶11

through the record, it is apparent that the FIR does discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

¶12

Section 482 Cr.P.C. envisages three circumstances, in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, to give effect to an order under Criminal Procedure Code, to prevent abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. A person seeking exercise of such inherent power, is required to show that there is harassment of any person by illegal prosecution.

¶13

In case of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra (1978 AIR SC 47) , the Supreme Court has held that this inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

¶14

In the landmark case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC Supl. (1) SCC 335 , the Supreme Court has laid down the detailed guidelines under which circumstances inherent powers can be exercised. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions and the limitations, settled legal proposition is that the High Court will not enter into any findings of facts, this Court is of the opinion that when FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then in that situation this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction unless an abuse of process of the court is shown.

¶15

As none of the aforesaid circumstances are presented in this case, petition fails and is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Vikram/-A

Mohd. Zaki and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Zaki and Another 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

Meera Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asif and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

K.N. Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saeed Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarfaraj Alam and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others