Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 567 (ALL)

Vitala @ Patiraji v. State of U. P.

2024-02-23

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 05.05.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 13, Basti as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 733 of 2018 (Prema Devi vs. Bitala @ Patiraji and Others), under sections 419, 420 I.P.C. Police Station Sonha, District Basti, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 13, Basti. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the seller of the property in question where the sale deed was executed on 27.04.2010 by the applicant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is claiming title to the property being the married daughter of one Chhedi Lal who was original owner of the property in question. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant was mutated in the revenue records and, thereafter, the sale deed was executed. He further submits that in respect of the property in dispute the claim of title to the property in question was also lodged by the complainant by means of a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 which is pending consideration before the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant is claiming title to the property in question on the basis of will. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rival claims to the title to the property in question is being adjudicated in the civil jurisdiction by means of the civil suit and as such the present criminal proceedings against the applicant is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even otherwise the present criminal complaint has been filed after five years of the lodging of the civil suit challenging the disputed sale deed dated 27.04.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the dispute with regard to the title in question is pending before the court concerned the criminal proceedings at this stage would not be maintainable. 5. Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the dispute with regard to the title in question is pending before the court concerned the criminal proceedings at this stage would not be maintainable. 5. Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the complainant is claiming the title on the basis of the registered will deed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the fact that the suit in respect of the property in question is pending consideration. 6. It is to be seen that the present dispute arises on account of two rival claims to the property in question. The rival claim arises out of title of the original owner. The complainant is claiming title to the property in question through the will executed by Chhedi Lal (original owner of property). However, the applicant is claiming title to the property in question through succession. According to learned counsel for the applicant the name of the applicant was mutated in the revenue records and thereafter the applicant has executed the sale deed. 7. It is also to be seen in the present case that the criminal complaint has been lodged by the complainant after five years of institution of the civil suit in the year 2010 but no explanation has been offered in the criminal complaint as to the reason for delay in lodging of the criminal complaint by the opposite party no. 2. The pendency of the civil suit which was instituted prior in point of time has not been disclosed in the criminal complaint. 8. Considering the fact that there is no fair disclosure in the criminal complaint with regard to the pendency of the civil suit being Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 and coupled with the fact that the civil suit is pending between the parties in respect of the title to the property in question. The summoning order dated 05.05.2018 is not tenable at this stage. The liberty stands granted in favour of the complainant to institute the criminal proceedings in accordance with law after the decision of the pending civil suit on the basis of finding recorded in the civil suit. 9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. The summoning order dated 05.05.2018 is not tenable at this stage. The liberty stands granted in favour of the complainant to institute the criminal proceedings in accordance with law after the decision of the pending civil suit on the basis of finding recorded in the civil suit. 9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. The summoning order dated 05.05.2018 and entire criminal proceeding in abovementioned case are hereby set aside in respect of applicant-Smt. Vitala @ Patiraji.