LexURMILA DEVI & OTHERS versus BALRAM & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1956 : 2025 INSC 915 Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 2025) 31 July 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants u/s.482 CrPC to quash the complaint u/ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC pending before the magistrate. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Quashing of criminal complaint – Testator on account of the fear of his estate being jeopardized by the alcoholic obsessions of his third son, bequeathed his properties in favour of the appellants-daughters-in-law by executing unregistered Will – After death of testator, third son executed a registered sale deed for his share in testator’s property in favour of the complainant – Unaware of the same, the appellants filed for mutation on the basis of will, and favourable mutation order was passed – Appellants then filed for permanent injunction against the complainant and exparte interim order was passed – Complainant raised objections against the mutation order but the same were rejected – Subsequently, complainant filed an application u/s.156(3) CrPC alleging that one of the testator’s son entered into a conspiracy with the appellants and forged a fraudulent unregistered Will after the death of the testator to circumvent the said sale deed by the third son in favour of the complainant – Complaint proceedings initiated – Quashing application by the appellants – Dismissed by High Court – Correctness: Held: None of the offences alleged against the appellants made out – Neither any criminal breach of trust nor cheating * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1957 Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another by impersonation found – No cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property found – Writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant failed to pursue the remedies available to it – Chronology of events indicates that the criminal proceedings were instituted only after approximately seven years of the mutation order, four years after the ex-parte ad-interim order and three years after the rejection of the objections to the Mutation Order – Instant case seeks to disguise a civil dispute as criminal – Complaint case against the appellants has been pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose – Impugned order of the High Court set-aside – Proceedings in complaint case quashed. [Paras 8.4-8.6, 9, 10] Case Law Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988] 2 SCR 930 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 – held applicable. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [2019] 2 SCR 185 : (2019) 16 SCC 739; Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018] 13 SCR 1028 : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [2007] 10 SCR 847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1; Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [1977] 3 SCR 113 : (1977) 2 SCC 699 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Land Revenue Act, 1901. List of Keywords Quashing the complaint; Conspiracy; Forged will; Criminal breach of trust; Cheating by impersonation; Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; ex-parte ad-interim order; Mutation order; Abuse of process of law; Unregistered Will; Permanent injunction; Disguise civil dispute as criminal. 1958 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 6543 of 2003 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Tripurai Ray, Anirudh Ray, Vinayak Mohan, Arjev Jain, E. C. Vidya Sagar. Advs. for the Respondents: D. P. Singh Yadav, Ms. Aneeta Yadav, Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Ms. Nazish Fatima, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Bhakti Vardhan Singh. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nagarathna, J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Application U/S 482 No.6543/2003 by the H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.