Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 568 (ALL)

Munakka Devi v. State of U. P.

2024-02-23

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants 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 applicants that the applicants are the purchasers of the property in dispute by sale deed dated 27.04.2010. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the sale deed was executed by one Vitala Devi in favour of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that subsequently the dispute arose between the complainant Prema Devi and the seller Smt. Vitala Devi with regard to title of the property. Smt. Prema Devi-complainant was claiming title to the property in question through will, whereas, Smt. Vitala Devi was claiming the property in question on the basis of succession mutation in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in respect of the aforesaid dispute a civil suit was also filed by the complaint being Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti and the same is pending consideration before the court concerned. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that after five years of institution of suit in the year 2015 a criminal complaint has been filed by the complainant Prema Devi without disclosing the pendency of the above mentioned civil suit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that even otherwise the applicants are the purchasers of the property in question and as such no offence under sections 420 and 419 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. 4. Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the fact that the present applicants are the purchasers of the property in dispute. He submits that the opposite party no. 2 is the adopted daughter of the original owner of the property Chhedi Lal and he has executed the will deed in favour of opposite party no. 2. 2 do not dispute the fact that the present applicants are the purchasers of the property in dispute. He submits that the opposite party no. 2 is the adopted daughter of the original owner of the property Chhedi Lal and he has executed the will deed in favour of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicants being the purchasers of the property in question would not come within the purview of section 419 and 420 I.P.C. 5. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants are bona-fide purchasers of the property. The complainant and one Vitala Devi who is also the co-accused were claiming title against each other to the property in question and in respect thereof a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 is pending consideration before the court concerned. The criminal complaint has been filed by the complainant after delay of five years even though civil suit in respect of the disputed sale deed was filed in the year 2010. The complainant was having knowledge with regard to the disputed sale deed in the year 2010, however, the criminal complaint has been lodged in the year 2015 without explaining any cause for delay. The complainant has also not disclosed in the complaint with regard to the pendency of the civil suit between the parties in respect of the dispute in question. Once there is no fair disclosure by the complainant and the process of law as initiated by the complainant is not fair and more particularly when the applicants are the bona-fide purchasers of the property in question then the interference by this Court is required. 6. The complainant before this Court has not been able to demonstrate that the purchasers were having knowledge with regard to ownership or title of the complainant Prema Devi. Such being the position the present criminal proceedings are not tenable under law against applicants and as such the summoning order dated 05.05.2018 is hereby quashed against the applicants Munakka Devi and Saroja. 7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.