The High Court refused to quash an FIR filed under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B regarding alleged forgery of a gift deed, holding that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences.
The prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report was refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2826 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Shri Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1 and 2; Shri Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 6.3.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0055 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, I.P.C., Police Station- Gahmar, District- Ghazipur with further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no.3, which was treated as complaint and the case was fixed for recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. That complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 9.7.2018. Concealing this fact again respondent no.3 moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. On the basis of that application impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. Respondent No.3 is the Aunt of petitioner no.1. Respondent no.3 has also filed a Civil Suit for cancellation of gift deed, which is still pending only to make undue pressure upon the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the gift deed is a registered deed. Photo of respondent no.3 is also pasted on the gift deed. The gift deed has not been declared forged or void by any competent court. No offence is made out against the petitioners, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no.3 argued that respondent no.3 had not executed gift deed in favour of petitioner no.2, Anita Devi, wife of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.2 with the help of her husband and petitioner nos.3 & 4, who
are marginal witness of the deed, have got executed forged gift deed in impersonation. Forged document has been prepared by the petitioners only to grab the property of respondent no.3. In such circumstances, FIR is not liable to be quashed.
As per allegation in the first information report, on 22.6.2017 petitioner no.2, Anita Devi had executed gift deed of disputed property in her favour with the help of other petitioners. In the first information report it has also been mentioned that the respondent no.3, informant, who is owner of the property, had not executed gift deed in favour of petitioner no.2. From the allegations made in the first information report it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we find that the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the impugned First Information Report cannot be accepted and is, hereby, refused.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 T. Sinha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting enforcement of process.
Whether a prior dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. bars a fresh Section 156(3) application leading to the present FIR.
Whether the quashing of an FIR is permissible when a registered gift deed has not been declared as forged by a competent court.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilip Kumar And 3 Others
State Of U.P.
Respondent no.3
Bachchoo Lal
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
