LexPARMINDER KAUR versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 S.C.R. 430 A PARMINDER KAUR v. ~""' STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1941 of 2009) I-;- l' B OCTOBER 26, 2009 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] . Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - FIR lodged r- .... u/ss.420146714681471 /PC against sister in law - Allegation c that she committed forgery by filing false affidavit wherein dates were altered - Petition uls. 482 before High Court, dismissed - On appeal, held: Manner in which litigation was fought shows that the criminal prosecution was started to wreak vengeance - Trial court took cognizance of non existent D offence mechanically - Complainant was not able to show • that appellant could be benefitted in any manner by changing the dates - Change could not and did not result in any illegal ... gains to appellant or illegal Joss to anybody - Such changes " were therefore innocuous and did not give rise to offence - E This was a case for malicious prosecution - Prosecution was abuse of process of law - Prosecution case quashed. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, relied on. F Bharat Parekh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 10 sec 109, distinguished. ~ K. Rama Krishna and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR ~ 2000 SC 3330, referred to. ..._ ' G Case Law Reference: > .... AIR 2000 SC 3330 referred to Para 11 ~ .. ~- (2008) 10 sec 109 distinguished Para 19 H 430 PARMINDER KAUR v. STATE OF U.P. 431 (1992) Supp. 1 sec 335 relied on Para 20 A ·~ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1941 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 3.8.2007 of the High B Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application No. 10377 of 2004. ~ V.B. Singh, Ratnakar Das, Gurbaksh Singh, Avtar Singh, -1 Abhijat P. Medh, Abha, R. Sharma, D.S. Parmar, Susheel Tamar, R.K. Gupta, Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra for c the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. ' D .. " 2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the High Court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C." for short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge sheet of case E No. 3045 of 2004 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "IPC" for sho~), pending '" in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. . . 3. This prosecution was initiated on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.2.2004 lodged by one F • · Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant herein, alleging the offences under aforementioned Sections. As per the said c9mplaint, by respondent no.2 one Amrinder Kaur and her husband Col. Hargobind Singh owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2. They were unable to look after G ~ -I the property and, therefore, appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general attorney. Respondent No. 2 herein, by virtue of general power of attorney, sold the aforementioned H ;. 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A land and delivered possession to the purchasers. He described appellant-Parrninder Kaur as a stranger. Two Civil Suits came 1.--4 to be filed by the appellant, Parminder Kaur, claiming to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrir:ider Kaur, against the ·• . purchasers. They were Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and 267 of B 2002. In those Civil Suits, she prayed for the cancellation of the Sale Deeds. According to the prosecution, while instituting these suits on 27.5.2002, the appellant had filed a false affidavit that she had come to know regarding the Sale Deed only on 16.5.2002 and had obtained a certified copy of Revenue t- ... c Record on 27.5.2002. According to the complainant, in fact, the appellant had actually moved for the certified copy of Khatauni on 6.5.2002 and had afready received the copy on 7.5.2002. On that allegation, it was contended in the FIR that she had committed the offences as alleged. The High Court took the D view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by the / prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it could ¥ "- not be said that no offence was disclosed from the same. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is challenged before us. 4. We ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.