Allowed

Mayawati Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/2047/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against bail order in a case involving cheating under IPC and SC/ST Act. The appellant claimed prior legal heirs status and mutation of property was regularised post-purchase but earlier. After dismissing the cancellation suit, Private Respondent filed FIR mechanically. Previous challenge to complaint dismissed, and mutation allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.08.2022 set aside; Appellant released on bail with conditions.

Mayawati Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1808

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2047 of 2022 Appellant :- Mayawati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harish Chandra Yadav,Pooja Devi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur passed in Bail No.59/2022 in S.T. No.14/2020 arising out of Case Crime No.219/2019 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(DHA), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Balrampur.

¶7

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the property of Gata No.24 and 238 situated at Village Vishanpur, DistrictBalrampur was purchased in 1986 by the appellant from one Ram Narayan who was the grand father of the informant of the present case but the mutation could not be done, and thereafter, on 14.05.1994, Ram Narayan died and on the basis of succession, the names of legal heirs were entered in the revenue record then this fact came into the notice appellant, thereafter, the application was given, as a result, the mutation was executed in favour of the appellant, and thereafter, suit for cancellation was filed by the private respondent/informant which was dismissed and the said order was challenged in the appeal and appeal was also rejected, thereafter, one application was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was also rejected, thereafter, the F.I.R. of case in question was lodged and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner without considering and examining the aforesaid facts. He further submitted that the appellant was enlarged on interim appeal on 30.08.2022 by this

¶9

Court. He further submitted that the notice is already served on the private respondent and the vakalatnama is already filed by Advocates, Shri Harish Chandra Yadav and Miss Pooja Devi but they are not pursuing the case, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute that the suit for cancellation of suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed for cancellation of sale deed in question but the same was rejected.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that the registered sale deed was executed by in favour of the appellant by the grand father of the informant of present case in 1986 and after the death of grand father of informant, as the mutation was not done and after death of grand father and after the death of grand father, on the basis of succession, the names of legal heirs were entered in the revenue record then this fact came into the notice appellant, thereafter, the application was given, as a result, the mutation was executed in favour of the appellant, and thereafter, suit for cancellation was filed by the private respondent/informant which was dismissed and the said order was challenged in the appeal and appeal was also rejected, thereafter, one application was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was also rejected, the property was mutated on the basis of succession, thereafter, application was moved for mutation by the appellant on the basis of sale deed which was allowed and thereafter, suit was filed by the informant for cancellation of sale deed which was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed and all these facts were not considered by the trial court, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Mayawati Devi involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

a. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

b. The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

c. The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶17

d. The appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mayawati Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayawati Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko 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

Ram Singh @ Nanku Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Prabha Shankar Yadav @ Gulle Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Balak Vs State of U.P.

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Mohammad Qaiyoum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another