Allowed

Smt. Afroz Parveen and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC7 Apr 2015C482/620/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instigated by giving false information about a death's place of residence to grab property. Relying on Supreme Court principles, the court held that since no offence was made out as the death was natural, the summons were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Summons of accused-applicants set aside; chargesheet dated 31.03.2014, cognizance order dated 19.05.2014, and criminal case proceedings quashed.

Smt. Afroz Parveen and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Quashing and FIR | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 620 of 2014

¶3

Smt. Afroz Parveen and others^{……. Applicants}

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand & others ……. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the applicants.

¶7

Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, A.G.A. with Mr. K.S. Rawal, Brief Holder for the respondent State.

¶8

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶9

U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)

¶10

The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the chargesheet dated 31.03.2014 as well as cognizance order dated 19.05.2014, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 588 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

¶11

An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3 against three named accused, i.e., applicants, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC on 03.01.2013. The contents of FIR will be dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment.

¶12

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that even if contents of FIR be presumed to be true, no offence, even prima facie, is made out against the applicants. The submission of learned counsel for

¶13

¶14

respondent no. 3, on the other hand, is that the intention of the applicants has to be seen when they committed the alleged act and, therefore, offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC are, prima facie, made out against the applicants.

¶15

As per FIR, which was lodged by respondent no. 3, his father Azhar Mohammad died on 02.04.2012 at Saharanpur. His burial took place in a graveyard at Dehradun. The applicants, in order to grab the property of deceased Azhar Mohammad, gave a wrong information in Nagar Nigam, Dehradun that Azhar Mohammad died at Dehradun at his residence situated at 43/4, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. When the informant came to know of the same through R.T.I., duly certified by Supervisor, Health Department, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, he tried to contact the applicants to know as to why the place of death of Azhar Mohammad was cited wrong? The applicants, in turn, through their companions, threatened the informant with dire consequences. In a nutshell, according to the informant, the applicants furnished wrong information in Nagar Nigam regarding the place of death of Azhar Mohammad for accruing undue benefit to them.

¶16

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, which is being assailed by the applicants through present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

¶18

Death of Azhar Mohammad on the relevant date is under no dispute. Whereas the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 3 is that death of Azhar Mohammad at Dehradun was furnished by the applicants to the Nagar Nigam with an ulterior motive, the submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that place of death of Azhar Mohammad, either at Saharanpur or at Dehradun would have made no difference to anyone, once it is admitted that Azhar Mohammad has died a natural death. This fact is also not disputed that the death certificate of Azhar Mohammad has not been issued by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. The question is – is any offence made out even if the applicants gave a wrong information regarding the place of death of Azhar Mohammad? It is being mentioned at the cost of repetition that the death of Azhar Mohammad is under no dispute and the death certificate has not been issued by the Nagar Nigam to them or to anybody else.

¶19

The submission of learned counsel for respondent no. 3 is that if the applicants showed the place of death of Azhar Mohammad at Dehradun, it would have been easier for them to have obtained the death certificate and, therefore, they gave wrong information.

¶20

The fact also remains that Nagar Nigam did not act upon (allegedly wrong) information supplied by the applicants. So far as the law relating to supply of information of death of anybody is concerned, the same can be supplied by anybody having the knowledge of the same.

¶21

¶22

The said fact has to be recorded in the register maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, and the extract of the entry made by the Registrar is issued to the one who applies for the same, which extract, in common parlance is known as ‘death certificate’.

¶23

Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 , has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court

¶24

¶25

should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. If the records disclose commission of a criminal offence and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the court will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such proceeding in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

¶26

When the foundation of offence is not laid against the applicants, the Court in its inherent power should interfere in the proceedings of the court below in view of the aforesaid ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has also been held that where the exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that may be committed by the subordinate court, such power should be exercised by the High Courts ex debito justitiae , i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists.

¶27

¶28

Although inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which such jurisdiction should be exercised. The applicants, in the instant case, appear to have passed the aforesaid tests.

¶29

This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that summoning of the accused-applicants, in the particular circumstances of the present criminal case, should be set aside to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

¶30

Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. Chargesheet dated 31.03.2014 as well as cognizance order dated 19.05.2014, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 588 of 2014, State vs Afroz Parveen and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed.

¶31

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

¶32

Dt. April 07, 2015. Negi

Smt. Afroz Parveen and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Afroz Parveen and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Mishra Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Balvant Singh Vs State and Ors.

Kanahiya Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Jakir Ali and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Gurbeer Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ashok Kumar Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.