Allowed

Prem Narain and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2021A482/13503/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 429, 467, and 468 IPC where the dispute arises from wills. The civil court had already decreed a suit cancelling the will relied upon by the complainant, disbelieving the criminal defense, rendering no offense. Consequently, the application to quash was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed, and the criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 776 of 2008 are quashed at this stage.

Prem Narain and Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13503 of 2008

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Narain And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Certified copy of the judgment and order dated 27.05.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Farenda, District-Maharajganj in OS (wrongly described as criminal case) 530 of 2002 has been produced and marked as 'X' and retained on record.

¶7

Present application has been filed to quash the proceeding in criminal case no.776 of 2008, under Sections-419, 429, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station-Farenda, District-Maharajganj pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Farenda.

¶8

Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant nos.3 and 4 are daughters of Swami Nath whereas the opposite party no.2 is the son of Prabhawati, the third daughter of Swami Nath. Applicant nos.2 and 1 are husband of applicant nos.3 and 4 respectively. While the applicants claim under the registered will deed dated 25.04.2000 executed by Swami Nath (the father of applicant nos.3 and 4 and the deceased Prabhawati), the opposite party no.2 set up a claim under another will deed dated 28.04.2000.

¶9

It is with respect to the will deed dated 28.04.2000 that the applicants instituted Original Suit No.530 of 2002, seeking relief of cancellation of that will deed of Swami

¶10

Nath. Undisputedly, the said suit came to be decreed by judgment dated 27.05.2003. Its certified copy has been brought on record, today. Perusal of that order reveals, the defense set up by the respondent no.2 was disbelieved in the aforesaid suit proceedings and that suit was decreed in favour of the applicant nos.3 and 4. Chandrawati, wife of Swami Nath supported the plea set up by the applicants that the opposite party were citizens of Nepal who had no interest in the property in question.

¶11

Against the aforesaid judgment and order, a restoration application is claimed to be pending. However, the said order has yet not been set aside or placed in abeyance. None has appeared in these proceedings on behalf of the private respondents, to disprove or doubt the correctness of the fact allegations.

¶12

In such fact background, it has been submitted that the dispute if any, between the parties was purely civil. Both parties set up their respective will deeds claimed to have been executed by Swami Nath. At present, the case set up by opposite party no.2 has been disbelieved by the Competent Court and the will deed 28.04.2000 set by the opposite party has been cancelled. Whatever be the final fate of the civil proceeding, in such facts no ingredients of offence alleged are not made out, at this stage, in view of the order dated 27.05.2003.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the present application and submitted, all defence may remain open to the applicants in the course of prosecution, therefore no indulgence is warranted.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the facts as they appear to

¶15

exist today, there is no reason to assume due execution of the will dated 28.04.2000 set up by the opposite party no.2 as it has been disbelieved by the Civil Court. Also, no challenge appears to have been raised by the complainant to the will dated 25.04.2000, in any competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶16

Accordingly in the peculiar facts of this case, the application is allowed and the proceeding against the applicants in the aforesaid case is quashed at this stage. Order Date :- 18.11.2021 S.Chaurasia

Prem Narain and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Narain and 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Azam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nirmala Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maqsood Alias Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Kishore Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Kishore Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another