Disposed

Amit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024A482/6162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery concerning a land purchase, the High Court issued notice to an informant and ordered an interim stay of proceedings against the applicant pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party No. 3 with seven days to act; proceedings against the applicant stayed till next listing.

Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6162 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Gangeshwar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C/Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicant seeking following main relief:-

¶7

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 02.12.2023, Summoning Order dated 11.03.2024 and entire proceeding of Case which is pending before ACJM-V, Lucknow in Case Crime No. 361/2022, Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 1.P.C., Police Station- Bakshi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow."

¶8

It is stated that the applicant purchased a piece of the land i.e. Gata No. 313 area 1.5490 hectare situated at Kunaura, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil- Bakshi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow through a registered sale deed dated 07.09.2022 registered on 08.09.2022 from the recorded tenure holder namely Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Rampal Singh, whose name was there in the records of rights i.e. Khatauni of Fasli Year 1422-1427, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today, which is taken on record. The said property was purchased after making payment of Rs. 30 Lakhs. Thus, the applicant is the bonafide purchaser of the land in issue i.e. Gata No. 313.

¶9

It is further stated that after the sale deed favourable to the applicant, informant/opposite party No. 3/Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Late Ram Lal Singh lodged an FIR alleging therein that the said property was purchased by him in the year 1992 from the recorded tenure holder namely Baij Nath Singh through various registered deeds and making allegations in the FIR against various persons including the applicant to attract the offence as indicated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

¶10

It is stated that in the Khatauni of Fasli Year 1422-1427, the name of the informant/opposite party No. 3 was not indicated with regard to Gata No. 313 of which the applicant is the bonafide purchaser and accordingly it appears that the allegations made in the FIR by the informant including claiming rights over the property in issue are completely baseless and bogus.

¶11

It is further stated that the offence as indicated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC would not attract against the applicant, as the amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 30 Lakhs was provided to the vendor of the deed namely Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Rampal Singh, whose name finds place in the Khatauni of Fasli Year 1422-1427.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶13

Accordingly, issue notice to the opposite party No. 3. Steps in this regard be taken within seven days.

¶14

List/put up this application in the month of September, 2024.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings, in issue, shall remain stayed so far as the same relate to the applicant.

¶16

In case, the steps are not taken within the time specified for this purpose, then the benefit of interim protection would not be available to the applicant and the trial court would be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Arun/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Khalil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Puneet Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Satya Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rajnish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Complainant of Case Crime No. 236/2021 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.