Dismissed

Lal Puri Goswami and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023A482/21276/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Single Judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting a discharge application. The court held that the applicants sought to prove innocence at trial and no abuse of process or legal ground justified quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Lal Puri Goswami and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172043

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21276 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Lal Puri Goswami And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Navaneet Kumar Shukla,Ravindra Kumar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Allahabad in Criminal Case No.2306 of 2021(State of U.P. Vs. Lalpuri Goswami and others).

¶8

Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR, being Case Crime No.0196 of 2019 dated 25.07.2019, leveling allegation of forgery and cheating against the present applicants with an averment that the applicant No.1 is the Samdhi of opposite party No.2 who has executed a registered sale deed dated 28.01.2019 on the basis of forged and fictitious documents showing himself as a owner of the subject matter of sale deed and taken consideration amount. Present applicants have moved an application for discharge. Learned trial court, after examining the matter on merits, has rejected the discharge application, vide order impugned dated 08.05.2023, which is under challenge before this Court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial court has illegally rejected the discharge application without applying his mind and without considering the entire case of the present applicants. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is the owner of the property in question and he has sold same land which belong to him, however, opposite party No.2 has filed false and malicious prosecution against the present applicants for the reasons known to him best. It is further submitted that on the face of record no case is made out against the present applicants, therefore, he is entitled for discharge. It is further submitted that the applicant nos.2 and 3 have falsely been implicated in the

¶10

matter inasmuch as neither they are instrumental in execution of sale deed nor they are present on the spot, therefore, no case is made out under Sections 504 and 506 IPC against them. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 has neither procured any document for the purpose of executing the sale deed nor he has sold another property than what was shown to the opposite party No.2. It is next contended that the order impugned passed by the learned trial court, being illegally and unwarranted under the law, is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that, prima facie, from the face of record, the complicity of the present applicants in the commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the material on record, learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the discharge application. It is further contended that the applicants are tried to prove their innocence in the incident in question which cannot be examined at this stage. No legal ground is made out, at this juncture, so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to discharge the present applicants for the offence allegedly committed by them. It is next contended that the instant application is liable to be rejected, being misconceived and devoid on merits.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, it is manifested that the applicant no.1 has executed sale deed dated 28.01.2019 in favour of the opposite party No.2 for consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/-. As per case of the prosecution, applicant No.1 has shown some other land to the opposite party No.2, however, he has executed the sale deed with respect to the some another land which was not shown to the first informant. Learned Magistrate has discussed the case of the present applicants in detailed in light of the statement made by other witnesses which are part of the case diary. Applicant no.1 is claiming himself as a owner of the plot No.362/3 measuring area 9.27 square meter. Learned counsel for the applicants has tried to raise a question with respect to the correctness of the payment of consideration money with a submission that there is no evidence on record to prove that Rs. 15,50,000/- as mentioned in the FIR has ever been given to the applicant no.1. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to question the factual aspect of the matter which is not required to be considered by this Court in exercise of inherent

¶13

jurisdiction. At this stage, this Court is not expected to conduct mini trial to examine the innocence of the present applicants. In discharge application, nothing has been pointed out as to who cognizable offence are not made out against the present applicants for which they have been arraigned in the charge sheet. Factum of execution of sale deed has not been denied by the present applicants, however, correctness of subject matter of the sale deed has been questioned by opposite party No.2, thus, levelled allegation of forgery and cheating.

¶14

So far as the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the applicants with respect to the presence of the applicant nos.2 and 3 at the place of occurrence is concerned, the same is matter of fact which can more appropriately be decided by the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record.

¶15

In this conspectus, as above, this Court did not find any justifiable ground to quash the impugned order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nothing has been demonstrated qua the abuse of process of Court and the existence of any legal ground in order to pass an order to secure the ends of justice. Applicants have still an opportunity to defence their case before the court below to prove their innocence.

¶16

Resultantly, instant application, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Mini

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lal Puri Goswami and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Puri Goswami and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shriman Shukla @ Saurabh Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another