Dismissed

Seeta Fatma @ Sita Fatima Mansoori @ Smt. Sitabai @ Fatima Mansoori v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary Special Vigilance and Anr.

Patna HC24 Apr 2013CR. MISC./35050/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court dismissed an application for quashing an FIR under various IPC and PC Act sections. The court refused to interfere in the pending vigilance investigation, holding that the stage was premature for exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of FIR and investigation dismissed; no interim relief granted.

Seeta Fatma @ Sita Fatima Mansoori @ Smt. Sitabai @ Fatima Mansoori… — Corruption | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35050 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35050 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Seeta Fatma @ Sita Fatima Mansoori @ Smt. Sitabai @ Fatima Mansoori, wife of Mahrum Md. Qurban Mansoori @ Hazi Md. Qurban, resident of village and P.O.-Bhagwanpur Chowk, P.S. Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur, permanent address- Sarsauti, P.S. Aurai, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through The Home Secretary, Special (Vigilance). 2. Zarina Khatoon, daughter of Late Hazi Md. Qurban, Resident of Mohalla- Bhagwanpur, Rewa Road, P.S. Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Parties. ======================================================

¶4

Appearance : For the Petitioner. : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1, Advocate. For the Vigilance : Mrs. Babita Kumari, A/C to Mr. Ramakant Sharma. For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶5

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶6

3 24-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶7

counsel for the State.

¶8

This is an application for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 23 of 2006, dated 21. 04. 2006 for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2), 13(1)(D) of P.C. Act.

¶9

The prosecution case as alleged that complainant is daughter of one Md. Hazi Qurban and Julekha Khatoon. The

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35050 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶11

mother of the complainant got the land of Khata Nos, 8,11, 33, 416, 584 bearing Plot Nos. 1374, 1015, 1013, 1014, 1021 in total area 1 Acre 98 decimal by gift. The land was mutated in the name of mother and she is in possession. It is alleged that after death of father of the complainant the accused persons under a conspiracy set up a lady of Bombay namely, Sita Bai, wife of Badlur Mallpa, resident of Sarsaurti as wife of the father of the complainant got a petition filed before accused no. 4, D.C.L.R. The accused no. 4 and 5 for personal gain in derogation to his power and position got the land mutated in the name of the said lady. Thereafter the accused no. 4 got a sale deed from that lady in the name of Kishore Anand, Lal Babu Rai, Mumtaz Ahmad, Md. Sahid Khan and Md. Mustak and from their possession got a sale deed with regard to the land in the name of his Sala, namely, Md. Azhar Perwaz. It is alleged that on the complaint, F.I.R. filed bearing Vigilance P.S. Case no. 23 of 2006 darted 21. 04. 2006.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not made accused in complaint, but has been made accused during investigation. It has been asserted that the petitioner has solemnised marriage with late Hazi Md. Qurban in 1964 according to Muslim rites and as such she is his wife and so

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35050 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶14

she has a right in movable and immovable property and she has filed a marriage certificate as contained in Annexure-2 in the petition for quoting and it has been asserted that the case is civil nature and hence criminal prosecution and investigation required to be quashed.

¶15

However, it is well settle that the for quashing of F.I.R. and criminal investigation/prosecution, the law is well settled in Kapoor Case 1960 SC 866 and Bhajan Lal Case reported in 1992 SCC Suppl. (1) 335.

¶16

The case is still at the stage of investigation. The inherent power can be exercised only if (i) it manifestly appear that there is legal bar i.e. want of prosecution (ii) where the allegation made is taken on face value do not constitute an office (iii) where the allegation made constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence or the malafide. The contention that the power is to be used sparingly with due care and caution to prevent the abuse of the process of court in the interest of justice.

¶17

However the petition is for quashing the F.I.R for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) and 13 (1) (D) of the P.C. Act the petitioner is not named in F.I.R. in the case. It is alleged that petitioner was set up

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35050 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶19

and fraudulently mutated the land in the name of forged lady and get the sale deed from that forged lady in the name of the relative of the official who were instrumental. Hence allegation is serious and the case is at the stage of investigation. The defence of the petitioner is that she is first wife of the deceased Hazi Mohammad Qurban. However, the defence of the accused and document filed about marriage cannot be considered to embark on fact at this stage when the investigation is still pending.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Vigilance however contends that the case is still at the stage of investigation.

¶21

Hence it is not proper to interfere in the vigilance investigation at this stage in serious allegation, hence, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶22

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶23

m.p.

Seeta Fatma @ Sita Fatima Mansoori @ Smt. Sitabai @ Fatima Mansoori v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary Special Vigilance and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeta Fatma @ Sita Fatima Mansoori @ Smt. Sitabai @ Fatima Mansoori v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary Special Vigilance and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Sharma Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Birendra Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Yaruddin Vs The State Of Bihar

Amarjeet Pandey @ Amarjeet Kr. Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar

Prithwi Chand Tatma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.