Allowed

Taslem Jahan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022A482/12013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders rejecting a protest petition challenging a final report in a false ICC case involving parentage forgery. The Court directed the Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint and proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside. Protest petition treated as a complaint; proceedings directed to proceed expeditiously under Cr.P.C.

Taslem Jahan Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Judgement reserved on 18.11.2022 Judgment delivered on 03.12.2022

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12013 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Taslem Jahan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Devendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagdish Prasad Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

In the present case, the applicant/complainant is before this Court. She was aggrieved that investigation in an F.I.R. lodged by her against opposite parties No. 2 to 4 was not properly conducted and a final report was submitted.

¶7

In order to oppose the final report, she filed a protest petition but by an order dated 02.04.2021, it was rejected and final report was accepted. The said order was challenged by way of revision but it was also rejected by way of an order dated 12.04.2022. The applicant is aggrieved by above referred orders.

¶8

Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant submitted that final report was submitted on ground that opposite party No.2 Mahnoor was staying with complainant since his childhood. She and her husband were shown in his educational document as father and mother and since on basis of said document, further identification documents of said Mahnoor were prepared wherein same parentage was shown. However, other documents such as nikahnama, voter id card

¶9

wherein real parentage was shown and i.e. of opposite party No.3 were not taken note of.

¶10

Learned counsel further submitted that learned Magistrate despite these facts were narrated in protest petition, has placed much reliance on educational document of class-I of opposite party No.2 wherein his parentage was shown of complainant and her husband. The Revisional Court has simply followed the reasons given by learned Magistrate.

¶11

Sri Prashant Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties have submitted that learned trial Court has considered the protest petition and since there was no prima facie case against opposite party No.2 to 4 has rightly rejected the protest petition.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶13

In protest petition, the applicant has placed documents, such as nikahnana, voter list that parentage of opposite party No.2 was different and as such, allegations that he made aadhar card and pan card showing parentage of complainant and her husband on basis of class-I document, knowingly that there were documents with different parentage appears to be a case of forgery and in case these documents were not part of case diary, the learned Court of Magistrate ought to have considered protest petition as a complaint.

¶14

Therefore, an error has been erupted and Magistrate has failed to appreciate that since there were documents which

¶15

2 of 3

¶16

appear to be a substantial evidence to make out a prima facie case against the applicant, it ought to have either disapproved the final report or considered the protest petition as a complaint and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶17

Both the Courts i.e. Court of Magistrate as well as Revisional Court have conducted a mini trial to the extent that to make out an opinion that whether the conviction can be made or not which was an incorrect approach.

¶18

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.04.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Case No. 33/12 of 2021 (Smt. Tasleem Jahan vs. Mahnoor and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Khatauli, District- Muzaffarnagar and order dated 12.04.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2021 (Tasleem Jahan vs. Mahnoor and others) are hereby set aside and learned Magistrate is directed to treat the protest petition as a complaint case and thereafter proceed further in accordance with provisions provided under Cr.P.C. expeditiously.

¶19

11. This application is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- December 03, 2022 Nirmal Sinha

¶21

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

Digitally signed by NIRMAL SINHA Date: 2022.12.03 14:47:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Taslem Jahan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taslem Jahan 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

Makhan Chu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harishchandra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ram Dutt Vs State of U.P.

Asna Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanraj Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others