Allowed

Vijay Lakshmi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025A482/1062/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sued under Sections 467/468 IPC for allegedly mortgaging land (Gata No. 171) they had not purchased; a revenue record error by a Lekhpal had wrongly included that plot with their purchased holding. The court found the applicants not at fault and quashed the summoning and revision orders.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijay Lakshmi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10471

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1062 of 2016

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Lakshmi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi,Manish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ripu Daman Shahi

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA on behalf of State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (IInd), Balrampur in Complaint Case No. 522 of 2015, Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur as well as order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2015 and the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in this case one half share of Gata No. 93 was purchased by the applicants from opposite party no. 2-Shiv Pal Sahu. At the time of entry in revenue record, Gata No. 171 was also entered in the name of applicants. On the basis of same Khatauni, a loan was taken from the bank by the applicant no. 1 and land was subjected to mortgage including Gata No. 171 also, since its entry was present in the Khatauni. Later on, the loan was discharged and discharge certificate dated 19.3.2015 is on record which shows that the loan of the applicant no. 1 was fully discharged. It is also submitted that in this regard an application was given to Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned on which report from Lekhpal was called for. The Lekhpal submitted his report dated 1.3.2016 which was forwarded by Tehsildar to Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned on 8.3.2016 in which he mentioned the fact that entry of Gata No. 171 was made in the Khatauni by the then Lekhpal with Gata No. 93 which shows that the applicants never intended to mortgage that land belonging to Gata No. 171 but being entry made by Lekhpal in Khatauni which was also subjected to mortgage with Gata No. 93, therefore, the applicants were not at fault. Even though complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with false allegations and summoning order was also passed on 6.7.2015. No prima facie case can be said to be made out against the applicants under Section 467, 468 IPC, therefore, they request to quash the entire proceedings of the case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the fact as mentioned by the Lekhpal in his report about entry of the Gata No. 171 in the revenue record made by the then Lekhpal with Gata No. 93. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that Gata No. 171 was never purchased by the applicants, therefore, it could not be subjected to mortgage by the applicants but it was done, therefore, it amounts to an offence and the order passed by the learned Magistrate for summoning the applicants is based on the facts on record, therefore, this application being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and Khatauni concerned and the report submitted by the Lekhpal to SDO concerned through Tehsildar dated 8.3.2016, it is apparent that Gata No. 171 was also entered in the revenue record with Gata No. 93, one half share of which was purchased by the applicants from opposite party no. 2 and the Khatauni was given to the bank for sanctioning of loan, as a result, both the Gata numbers were charged and later on loan was repaid and discharge certificate was issued on 19.3.2015. In this scenario, it cannot be said that the entries in the revenue record were made by the applicants, who were in collusion with the then Lekhpal but it was fault on the part of the Lekhpal in making entry in revenue record for which applicants cannot be said to be liable, thus, if applicants are allowed to prosecute, it will be abuse of process of the court, therefore, the order passed by the learned court concerned in Complaint No. 522 of 2015 for summoning the applicants under Sections 467 and 468 IPC cannot be said to be entirely justified but liable to be quashed.

¶11

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (IInd), Balrampur in Complaint No. 522 of 2015, Police Station, Pachpedwa, District Balrampur and order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2015 are hereby quashed.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 AKK

¶13

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

Vijay Lakshmi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijay Lakshmi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaikaran Shukla and Anr. Vs the State of U.P

Mohd. Mohsin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Ors.

Ravi Rathore Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

Pramod Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.