MUKEEM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dtd. 11/4/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a petition filed under Sec. 482 CrPC has been challenged by the Appellants. The prayer before the High Court was for quashing the Case Crime No. 341 of 2018 dtd. 28/6/2018 registered under Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings thereto.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the case came to be registered on a complaint filed by Aash Mohamad, son of late Gulam Mohamad. It was registered as a result of an application filed before the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) CrPC. The allegation was that Nusarat Jahan, widow of Gulam Mohamad had sold the property to the Appellants which she was not entitled to sell as after the death of her husband Gulam Mohamad, she had remarried.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that he purchased a piece of land from Nusarat Jahan widow of Gulam Mohamad after payment of due consideration. The sale deed was registered on 17/3/2017 for a total consideration of Rs.14.00 lakhs. The Appellants were not in the knowledge of any fact regarding the dispute of the vendor in the family or that she had remarried after the death of her husband thereby putting a scar on her right in the property. In fact, the Appellants were surprised to know about all these facts when they received notice in a Civil Suit No. 14/2017 filed by the complainant on 27/3/2017. After filing the civil suit, they filed application under Sec. 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate on 29/5/2018 for registration of FIR on the basis of which, the same was registered. It is the admitted case of the complainant that after the death of Gulam Mohamad, mutation of the land in question was registered in the name of Nusarat Jahan on the basis of which the land in question was sold by her to the appellants. In the FIR, there are no allegations of cheating against the Appellants. The allegations of cheating are only against Nusarat Jahan. In fact, on a plain reading of the FIR, no case is made out against the appellants, hence permitting the trial to continue would result in abuse of process of Court especially when a civil suit filed by the complainant more than a year before filing of application under Sec. 156(3) CrPC, was already pending.