Pushpa Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Aug 2025C482/1083/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application allowed; summoning/cognizance order dated 26.07.2016; Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC; supplementary/corrigendum sale deeds; boundaries and measurements dispute purely civil; abuse of the process of the court; Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2016 dismissed; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Dehradun; Additional Sessions Judge 5th Dehradun; Civil Suit No. 603 of 2003 dismissed; Civil Suit No. 461 of 2001; Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Khasra Nos. 658, 659, 689; Alok Mahra, J.; Uttarakhand High Court; 2025:UHC:6812.

What did the court decide?

The C-482 application was allowed; the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Dehradun under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, as well as the judgment and order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 5th Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2016, were quashed.

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

01.08.2025

C482/1083/2017
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr.
T.A.
Khan,
learned
Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt,
learned counsel for the applicant.
2.
B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3.
No representation for respondent
no.2
4.
This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant
seeking quashing of the_cognizance/_
summoning
order
dated
26.07.2016
passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Dehradun, in a
complaint case under Sections 420, 467,
468, 120-B IPC, as well as the judgment
and order dated 31.07.2017 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5^th
Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 258 of
2016, whereby the revision preferred by
the applicant was dismissed.
5.
Learned
senior
counsel
for
the
applicant would submit that one Smt.
Premwati W/o Nand Kishore sold her land
to Smt. Parwati Devi through a registered
sale deed dated 17.10.1979; that, Smt.
Parwati Devi executed a sale deed in
favour
of
the
present
applicant
on
29.05.1991; that, a supplementary sale
deed was thereafter executed by Smt.
Parwati Devi on 06.08.1991; that, the
legal heirs of Smt. Parwati Devi executed
another
supplementary
deed
on
20.10.2003 in favour of the applicant.
6.
Learned senior counsel would further
submit that the wife of the applicant had
earlier filed Civil Suit No. 461 of 2001,

which was pending adjudication; that,
during the pendency of that suit, the
respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the intention to exert pressure; that, initially, vide order dated 28.04.2007, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance against several persons;
that, subsequently, on an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the
respondent no.2, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated
26.07.2016, summoning the applicant.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would
further submit that the supplementary deeds merely corrected the boundaries
and area of Khasra No. 689 as per actual
possession and there was no change in
Khasra No. 659; that, the property of
respondent no.2 (Khasra No. 658) had
already been sold and recorded in the
revenue records on 15.02.2008; hence,
he suffered no loss or prejudice; that, no
civil suit has ever been filed by
respondent no.2 for cancellation of the
supplementary/ corrigendum deeds.
8. Learned State counsel would submit
that the learned trial court, after
considering the material on record, rightly
issued summons under Sections 120-B,
420, 467 & 468 IPC; that, the learned
revisional court, on proper appreciation of
the evidence and law, has affirmed the
order dated 26.07.2016, and no
interference is warranted.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
10. It is admitted that respondent no.2
has not filed any case to cancel the
supplementary/corrigendum sale deeds
made in favour of the applicant,
therefore, without cancellation by a Civil
or Revenue Court, the exact boundaries,
measurements, and ownership cannot be decided in criminal proceedings. This

which was pending adjudication; that,

during the pendency of that suit, the

respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint
against the applicant with the intention to
exert pressure; that, initially, vide order
dated 28.04.2007, the learned Magistrate

took cognizance against several persons;

that, subsequently, on an application

under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the

respondent no.2, the learned Magistrate
passed
the
impugned
order
dated

26.07.2016, summoning the applicant.

7.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
would

further submit that the supplementary
deeds merely corrected the boundaries

and area of Khasra No. 689 as per actual

possession and there was no change in

Khasra No. 659; that, the property of

respondent no.2 (Khasra No. 658) had

already been sold and recorded in the

revenue records on 15.02.2008; hence,

he suffered no loss or prejudice; that, no

civil
suit
has
ever
been
filed
by

respondent no.2 for cancellation of the

supplementary/ corrigendum deeds.

8.
Learned State counsel would submit

that
the
learned
trial
court,
after

considering the material on record, rightly

issued summons under Sections 120-B,

420, 467 & 468 IPC; that, the learned

revisional court, on proper appreciation of

the evidence and law, has affirmed the

order
dated
26.07.2016,
and
no

interference is warranted.

9.
Heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material available on

record.

10. It is admitted that respondent no.2

has not filed any case to cancel the

supplementary/corrigendum sale deeds

made
in
favour
of
the
applicant,

therefore, without cancellation by a Civil

or Revenue Court, the exact boundaries,

measurements, and ownership cannot be
decided in criminal proceedings. This

Pushpa Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shail Goyal Vs Smt. Neelam

Smt. Chitralekha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Praveen Alias Pappan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Mahendra Thapa Alias Mangal Thapa Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Chopra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Arun Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand