LexSAVITRI PANDEY AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 633 SAVITRI PANDEY AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 7 41 of 2015) May 01, 2015. [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ petition - C Seeking quashing of FIR - Maintainability of - In the State of Uttar Pradesh - Held: In view of the fact that provision for anticipatory bail uls 438 Cr. PC was deleted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, writ petition challenging FIR is maintainable. 0 FIR-Quashingof-F/Rulss.420, 467, 468, 471, 1208, 504 and 506 /PC - Writ petition for quashing the FIR - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Facts of the present case indicate abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant - FIR liable to be quashed - Penal Code, E 1860 - ss.420, 467, 468, 4 71, 1208, 504 and 506 - Administration of Criminal Justice. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In view of the position of law that provision for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.PC has been deleted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the present case, it cannot F be said that the writ petition challenging the First Information Report before the High Court was not G maintainable. [para 1 O] [637-H] [638-A] Ram Lal Yadav and others v. State of U.P and others 1989 CriLJ 1013, Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 633 H 634 SUPREMECOU~TREPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A (2008) 3 SCC 753 - relied on. 2. Certain facts are glaring, indicating the abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant, viz. (a) In respect of registered sale deeds the complainant has s woken up after a period of nineteen years to allege that the registered sale deeds are fraudulent, (b) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, it is nowhere stated that she ever filed suit for cancellation of the sale deeds alleging that the sale deeds were C fraudulent till date, (c) Admittedly, parties are close relatives, had their joint property in the village, out of which properties have been sold through the disputed sale deeds, and (d) No specific role has been assigned to the present appellants as to their role for execution of D the sale deeds in question. Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. [para 11-12] [638-B-F, H] [639-A] Case Law Reference E 1989 CriLJ 1013 (2008) 3 sec 753 relied on relied on para 8 para 8 F CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal No. 741 of2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2014. G San jay Singh, Rajeev Singh for the Appellants. Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Gaurav Srivastava, Abhishek Chaudhary, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Kripa Suankar Prasad, Sukanta Kumar Biswal, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the H Respondents. SAVITRI PANDEYv. STATE OF U.P. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted. 635 A 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 31.1.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal 8 Misc. Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2014 whereby said Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the First Information Report, registered as Crime No. 16 of 2014, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 1208, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station C Milak, District Rampur. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 4. Brieffacts of the case are that respondent No. 4 Damitri D Pandey, lodged First Information Report on 8.1.2014 at Police Station Milak, Rampur, in respect of above offences against as many as fifteen accused stating that in respect of land owned by her, which was part of Khasra No. 148 in VillageAsdullapur, three sale deeds (at different dates) were fraudulently got E executed in favour of different persons in the year 1994. The present appellants have been named as accused Nos. 14 and 15 in the First Information Report, but no specific role has been assigned to them. It is admitted to the parties that complainant F (respondent No. 4) is real sister-in-law of appellant No. 1, and appellant No. 2 (Raju Pandey) is son of appellant No. 1. It is also admitted that the land in question was joint family property of the appellants, respondent No. 4 and other members of the family. G 5. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, (complainant) it is stated that though no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.