Dismissed

Khatun Jhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2025A482/4162/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a sessions trial and chargesheet under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, claiming an impostor had executed a sale deed using her identity. The court found no document establishing her credentials and noted charge was already framed and trial ongoing, holding that credentials could not be examined at this stage, and dismissed the application as misconceived.

What the court decided

AI extract

Khatun Jhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4162 of 2025

Khatun Jhan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Awasthi, Shuchita Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.2964 of 2003 (State Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors.) pending before learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri alongwith impugned chargesheet dated 12.2.2003 arising out of Case Crime No.378 of 2002, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Gola, District - Kheri.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present petition is filed by Khatun Jahan, w/o Late Ajmat Ajeem Khan r/o Lakharawa, Gola Gokaran Nath, Kheri, duly sworn by Arbaj Khan S/o Najakat Khan r/o Lakharawa, Post Muda Savaran, Lakharawa, Kheri claiming himself as nephew of the applicant. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, Ajmat Ajeem Khan was the recorded tenure holder of the property in question, as he was issue less, therefore, after his death in the year 1976, the property was mutated in the name of his wife, namely, Smt. Khatun Jahan. He also submits that one Khatun Begum w/o Jareef Khan r/o Chandiyana, P.S. Baresena, Bulandshahr claimed herself as Khatun Jhan w/o Late Ajmat Ajeem Khan and executed a sale deed in favour of the named accused persons. He also submits that charge sheet was submitted by the

¶12

A482 No. 4162 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Investigating Officer against (i) Jagtar Singh S/o Sri Desh Singh R/o Grant No.3, Hindustan Farm, P.S. Mailani, (ii) Sukhjinder Singh S/o Ajeet Singh R/o Rehariya, P.S. Mohammadi, (iii) Balwant Singh s/o Charan Singh R/o Baslipur, Gola, (iv) Ajeej Khan S/o Haqram Ullah Khan R/o Lakhrawa, P.S. Gola, (v) Nazakat Ali S/o Ajeej Khan R/o Lakhrawa, P.S. Gola, (vi) Jagtaar Singh S/o Balwant Singh R/o Baslipur, P.S. Gola, (vii) Khatun Begum w/o Jareeb Khan R/o Yadiyana, P.S. Barsena, Bulandshahr and trial was proceeded, thereafter, all of sudden, one application was filed by the informant of the present case on 7.12.2024 informing that the accused Khatun Begum w/o Jareef Khan placed the credentials of Khatun Jahan, who already died on 27.2.2006 only with the intention to escape from trial, therefore, N.B.W. was issued against her and she was placed before trial court, however, later on, she was enlarged on bail. He lastly submits that charge was already framed against the applicant without giving any opportunity of moving discharge application and trial is going on, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶15

4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant.

¶16

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the informant claiming himself brother of Late Ajmat Ajeem Khan. Neither any Kutumb Register nor any other relevant document have been placed by the applicant before this Court to show her credential. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that charge has already been framed against the applicant and the trial is going on, therefore, at this stage credentials of the accused cannot be examined.

¶17

6. In view of the above, the present application is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶19

October 27, 2025 GauraV/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khatun Jhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Khatun Jhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajkumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohit Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Archana Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

Amit Mohan Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tasleem Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others