Allahabad High Court
Smt Prema Devi And 6 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 7 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81913-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6875 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Prema Devi And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Prasad,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Sri Dinesh Kumar Misra, Advocate and Ms. Anita Singh has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.3, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned AGA for the State.
3. The writ petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.4.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0191 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur.
4. The petitioner no. 1 is vendor of disputed sale-deed, petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are beneficiaries of gift-deed executed by petitioner no.1 and the petitioner nos. 5 to 7 are the marginal witness of the sale-deed.
5. So far as the petitioner no. 1, namely, Smt. Prema Devi, is concerned, following order is being passed :-
"From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner no.1. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the petitioner no. 1 be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.
However, in case, the petitioner no. 1 do not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the petitioner no. 1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above."
6. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 7 are concerned, the petition is disposed of directing that till cognizance is taken on police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., by the court the respondents shall not arrest the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 12.4.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0191 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur, subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Akbar
(Surendra Singh-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
