Mohd Ashraf Vs State of Up and Another

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.9, Allahabad by which the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been dismissed and the charges had been framed vide order dated 16.12.2023, hence, both the aforesaid orders dismissing the discharge application, as well as framing of charge, are under challenge in the instant revision.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that similar allegations were levelled against the revisionist in the FIR dated 05.11.2017 which was earlier registered and this is the second FIR in respect of almost similar allegations. Learned counsel further submitted that, so far as property in question is concerned, the revisionist had moved a civil suit before the trial court bearing no. 170 of 2019 for getting the sale deed dated 22.02.2018 cancelled and further submitted that, if the said sale deed dated 22.2.2018 is rendered nullity, no offence, whatsoever can be said to be made out against the revisionist. The revisionist is a bonafide purchaser and no benefit, whatsoever has accrued to the revisionist by purchasing the said property. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of impersonating the mother of the opp. party no.2 in executing the sale deed dated 22.2.2018 is false and baseless and no such forgery has ever been committed by the revisionist and prayed that both orders

¶11

CRLR No. 602 of 2024

¶12

2

¶13

dated 07.08.2023 and 16.12.2023 are liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for opp. party no.2 submitted that the revisionist has committed forgery of impersonating by a lady, as the mother of opp. party no. 2 and finally got the sale deed executed in the name of his company. He further submits that, few cheques were issued in lieu of the said sale deed, almost all of them have dishonoured and some are lying unused. So far as company is concerned, the value of the said company namely Alia Infra State Private Co. Limited is that of a total of Rs. 1 lac (of its capital value), therefore, paying a sum of Rs. 90 lac or 1 crore is beyond the capacity of the company. It is further submitted that as per his knowledge, criminal history of 26 cases against the revisionist is pending. The revisionist is known criminal in the city. He further submitted that, so far as earlier FIR is concerned, it was lodged that the revisionist was preparing to commit such offence of impersonating a person to sell of the land of the mother of opp. party no. 2 and this act has culminated in lodging the second FIR No. 715 of 2018. It was only when his conspiracy and acts have come into operation, as a result of lodging the second FIR. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 further submits that, so far as mutation of the said property before the revenue authority is concerned, the said mutation was withdrawn by the revisionist. The said withdrawal was conditional, to take the matter at appropriate stage, if the situation so warrants. He further submits that, so far as fabricating of the documents and impersonating of the mother of opp. party no. 2 is concerned, the same facts has come on the record. Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 has placed reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46 2. It is lastly submitted that the trial is in progress and at least two witnesses have been examined in the matter, no purpose whatsoever would be served, if the present revision is entertained at this stage and prayed that this revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Having heard to the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the orders dated 07.08.2023 and 16.12.2023 by which the discharge application of the revisionist was dismissed and thereafter, charge was

¶16

CRLR No. 602 of 2024

¶17

3

¶18

framed. The contention on behalf of opp. party no. 2 is that the revisionist is having criminal history, it is not necessary that every case is concerned with the present transaction and opp. party no. 2 has to remain confined as far as any offence committed by revisionist during transaction with respect of sale deed dated 22.2.2019. However, in the event of said sale deed dated 22.02.2018 is rendered nullity, the aspect of crime, so far as impersonation of some lady, as the mother of opp. party no. 2 is concerned and other preparation of any documents, the same shall be looked into during the course of trial. It shall remain open to the revisionist to adduce any such evidence, which is available in his favour, before the trial court and the revisionist will have further opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for with regard to the aforesaid orders under challenge.

¶19

The present revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶21

October 13, 2025 Gss

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Ashraf v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ashraf v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases