Remanded

Vishnu Narayan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024A482/2068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application regarding a malicious prosecution defence in a property dispute linked to a murder case, the Allahabad High Court, as an interim measure, stayed proceedings of the impugned order rejecting a discharge application while recording objections to the FIR's motive.

What did the court decide?

Stayed proceedings of the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 pending further proceedings in this application.

Vishnu Narayan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2068 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vishnu Narayan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Tripathi,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicants Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Ishuk Ali Yusuf, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have challenged validity of an order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/FTC, Hardoi in Case No. 16354 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the applicants for their discharge under Sections 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶8

It was stated in the discharge application that brother of the applicant no. 1 was killed by the opposite party no. 2 and some other persons on 21.11.2017 and the opposite party no. 2 was lodged in jail in connection with that case. He was pressurizing the applicants to enter into a settlement in that case and with this object, he had initiated the criminal proceedings against the applicants alleging that the accused persons fraudulently transferred land belonging to one Surjit Singh, son of Diwan Singh to one Sukhvinder Singh. It was stated in the discharge application that land bearing gata No. 2977 was a large chunk of land and applicant no. 2 Vimla Devi was its co-tenure holder. She had no knowledge about partition of the gata into two parts and, therefore, she had executed a sale deed in respect of a part

¶9

of land in the year 2011. Upon coming to know about the error committed, the necessary correction was made on 27.03.2012. There was no dispute between the seller and purchaser and the opposite party no. 2 had filed the FIR merely as an attempt to put undue pressure on the applicant in order to settle the case of murder in which the opposite party no. 2 is an accused.

¶10

As neither the purchaser nor co-tenure holder whose land was allegedly sold in the year 2011 had lodged any complaint and the error in description of the land has been corrected subsequently, prima facie it appears that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged an FIR on 10.05.2020, maliciously to haress the applicants.

¶11

The matter requires consideration.

¶12

The opposite party no. 2 may file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶13

List in the week commencing 06.05.2024.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, as an interim measure, proceedings of impugned order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/FTC, Hardoi in Case No. 16354 of 2021, shall remain stayed.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Pradeep/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishnu Narayan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Narayan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow 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

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Salim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mr. Azad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Suryabhan and Others vs Shri Shwetabh Singh, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil-Milkipur, Ayodhya

Bhupesh Dubey vs Sri Shailendra Verma, S.D.M., Pratapgarh

Nabab vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others