Allahabad High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others on 5 May, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70858-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8071 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Yogendra Pal Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the material on record.
2. The contents of F.I.R in this case are as follows :-
"In the court of A.C.J-3, Meerut, Case No. 33/44 Year 2024, Kapil S/o, Jitender, R/o, Village- Khalidpur, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil- Mawana, District- Meerut, presently living at 1121, Tower P-4, Aashiana Palm Court, Rajnagar extension, Ghaziabad, U.P. Complainant vs.
1. Satish Kumar S/o, Sh. Bhanwar Singh, R/o, Village- Khalidpur, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District- Meerut.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o, Prem Singh, R/o Village - Kandera, Tehsil- Baraut, District- Baghpat. Accused Police Station- Falawada Sub: Complaint under Section 173(4) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024.
Sir, The complainant submits as under :-
1. That the complainant and the accused are the joint owner in possession of land bearing Khata No. 00021, Khasra No. 262, measuring 2.9400 hectare located in Village. The aforesaid land Khalidpur, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil Mawana, District- Meerut.
2. That the accused nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with some other unknown person filed an application for kurrabandi (family settlement) of land narrated in para before the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mawana, Distt. Meerut.
3. That since the complainant and his family reside at Ghaziabad due to his fora long time, the accused managed the services of all the notice/surn issued to the complainant by way of a criminal conspiracy by way of putting his wrong address and presenting a false, bogus and fictitious person as complainant Kapil Kumar.
4. That as such the accused no.1 and 2 under a conspiracy prepared false and bogus document as well as impersonating a bogus person as complainant.
5. That the accused prepared false and bogus documents and produced them in various offices and courts.
6. That the accused also managed to produce some other person in the court presenting him as the complainant. The accused unlawfully made false signatures of the complainant on various documents to get illegal benefits.
7. That by way of these acts the accused managed the case and benefits in their favour without the knowledge and notice of the complaint.
8. That by way of this unlawful act the accused got the most favourable and better located piece of land and debarred the complainant from his constitutional rights.
9. That the accused made false and bogus documents of the complainant on various documents which are evident from the first eye view in the attached documents.
10. That some of the falsely prepared documents of the complainant proving a prima facie offence is attached herewith. The utmost unlawful daring act of the accused was that they produced some unknown person personating as complainant and got admitted the Claim of the complainant.
11. That the specimen signatures of the complainant proving the cheating created by the accused is also attached along with the complaint.
12. That the offence made/executed by the accused is covered within the category of cheating, fraud, criminal conspiracy and preparing unlawful documents and securities for their monetary benefit.
13. That while executing the present offence the accused prepared all the false and bogus 0cuments and hatched the criminal conspiracy in village Khalidpur Situated within the jurisdiction of Falawada Thana, Meerut.
14. That the matter was reported to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police but no action has been taken.
15. That a proper detailed investigation is required in the present unlawful act done by the accused as they can repeat such type of unlawful acts in future also. It is therefore, requested that the Hon'ble Court may please take consideration of the present unlawful act under Section 173(4) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 and register a case under Sections- 318, 338, 336, 340 and Section 61 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and to take notice of cognizance of the offence. Place : Meerut, Dated: 29/08/2024 Complainant Through Counsel."
3. From the perusal of F.I.R., it is clear that there is dispute regarding the validity of an application allegedly given by Satish Kumar and Ashok Kumar for getting the demarcation (kurabandi) of the land in dispute. It is alleged that the aforesaid demarcation (kurabandi) was done on the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mawana, District- Meerut, without information to the informant. It is also alleged that someone impersonated the informant before the court and got the orders of demarcation (kurabandi).
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made against the petitioner and other co-accused are absolutely false. Against the order of demarcation (kurabandi) passed by the court the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, respondent no. 3 has remedy of getting the same recalled on the same allegations as made in the F.I.R. He has further remedy to preferring appeal against the aforesaid order.
5. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has opposed the submissions and submitted that allegations in the F.I.R are correct and require to be investigated by police.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023, SCC Online SC 951, this court stated :-
"34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. "
7. Considering the dictum of Apex Court, we find that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent no. 3 is for obviating the statutory remedy provided under the U.P. Revenue Code. The F.I.R is clearly vexatious in nature.
8. The court of S.D.M., Mawana, has power to verify the documents forming part of the record of court and separate investigation by police is not warranted. The competent court is competent enough to look into the allegations of cheating, forgery, etc., made in the F.I.R.
9. In view of the above, the impugned FIR is quashed.
10. The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Rohit (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) (Siddharth,J.)