HIRA LAL & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 08-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 567 
HIRA LAL & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2009) 
"" 
APRIL 8, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482- Jurisdiction 
under - Parameters of interference with criminal proceeding 
by High Court - Discussed - On facts, there were allegations c 
of execution of forged Will - Complaint petition in this regard 
was dismissed by a reasoned order - Second complaint 
petition reiterating same a/legations as made in first complaint 
~' 
petition -
Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable -
Dispute was essentially civil in nature and criminal court could D 
not determine the same - In any event, the second complaint 
petition did not disclose any exceptional case and no fresh 
fact was brought to notice of the court - Hence, summons 
issued by Magistrate on the second complaint petition was 
wholly illegal and without jurisdiction - High Court erred in 
rejecting the application filed by accused uls.482 CrPC -
E 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 - Will. 
Appellants and respondent no.3 are co-sharers in 
• 
certain property. Dispute arose between them with 
regard to validity of a registered Will. Prima facie, a Civil 
F 
Court found the said Will to be genuine. A complaint 
'i 
~-.. 
petition filed by respondent no.3 ulss. 420, 462, 467, 468 
and 471 IPC on the premise that the said Will was forged 
and fabricated was dismissed by the Magistrate. Revision 
application filed thereaginst was also dismissed. G 
y 
Subsequently respondent no.3 filed application uls.156(3) 
CrPC making similar allegations of forged Will, 
whereupon the Magistrate issued summons against the 
appellants. Appellants filed application urs. 482, CrPC. 
567 
H 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A The High Court declined to go into the merits of the matter 
and dismissed the application. Hence the present appeal. 
,
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The parameters of interference with a 
.i
B criminal proceeding by the High Court in exercise of its 
)< 
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code are well 
known. One of the grounds on which such interference 
is permissible is that the allegations contained in the 
complaint petition even if given face value and taken to 
c be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is 
not disclosed. The High Court may also interfere where 
the action on the part of the complainant is ma/a fide. 
[Para 1 OJ [573-B-D] 
D 
State of Haryana & Ors. v .. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) 
... 
Supp 1 SCC 335; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr. 
(1985) 2 SGC 370 and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. 
(2009) 1 sec 516, referred to. 
" 
2. In the present case, the dispute between the 
E parties is essentially civil in nature. Whether the Will in 
question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or 
not is a matter which may appropriately fall for 
determination in a testamentary proceeding. The question 
as to whether the transactions are genuine or not would 
-. 
F fall for consideration before the Civil Court. What was the 
share of the respective co-sharers is a question which is 
purely a civil dispute; a criminal court cannot determine 
the same. [Paras 11 and 13) [573-D-E; 575-B-C] 
G 
3. The order passed by the Magistrate in the first 
complaint petition is not cryptic. Reasons have been 
assigned in support thereof. In a situation of this nature, 
¥· 
a second complaint petition could not have been filed. 
The second .complaint petition filed by respondent no.3 
H 
HIRA LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
569 
·t 
does not disclose any such exceptional case. It reiterated 
A 
the same allegations as were made in the first complaint 
petition. No fresh fact was brought to the notice of the 
court. The core contention raised in both the complaint 
petitions was alleged execution of a forged Will. It was not 
a fit case where cognizance of the offence could have 
B 
been taken or any summons could have been issued. 
[Paras 14, 15 and 16) [575-C-D; 576-C-E] 
Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr. (2003) 1 
sec 734, referred to. 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 referred to 
Para 11 
><· 
(1985) 2 SGC 370 
referred to 
Para 11 
D 
(2009) 1 sec 516 
referred to 
Para 11 
(2003) 1 sec 734 
referred to 
Para 14 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 662 of 2009. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2008 of the 
Court of Judicature at Allah
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.