Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

quashing of entire proceedings of case no.696 of 2015 arising out of case crime no.132 of 2015, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Dauki, District Agra and the charge-sheet dated 04.09.2015 filed in the aforesaid case.

3. The facts of the case in the nutshell is that the FIR was registered on the pretext of the informant that the father of the informant namely Deep Singh had bought a piece of land after whose death his wife Smt. Ramrani succeeded the property which is situated at Ghata No. 532 total area comprising of 1.8250 Hectares with 1/4 part. Further she alleges that one Rakesh Babu , his wife Mukeshi Devi , Ramdhani , Sanju and Deepak have conspired with each other and got a false and fabricated sale deed dated

31.01.2015 in their name by impersonating someone else as her mother Smt Ramrani. In the same way she got her name mutated in the revnue records.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants summits that the applicants are completely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case only to put undue pressure on them. The entire prosecution story is completely false and the dispute is per se civil in nature . He further submits that the applicants are bonafide purchasers of the property and the allegation 1 of misuse of identity/impersonation cannot be fastened to them as the instant conveyance instrument is a registered sale deed and till date it has not been challenged before the competent court, hence, the criminal process cannot be set into motion.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further states that pursuant to the sale deed dated 31.01.2015 the applicant no.1, Mukeshi Devi had applied for mutating her name in the revenue records and vide order dated 23.03.2015 her name got mutated in the revenue records, and the same was not agitated by the vendor nor the informant before the competent court. He also submits that the vendor is a widow lady and had no other source of income and after the death of her husband in order to cope up with her liabilities she has sold the aforesaid property and the informant/opposite party no.2 who is the daughter of the vendor in order to extort more money had lodged the first information report on false and baseless allegations which is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants, has also pointed out that in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit he had made categorical averment that the aforesaid sale-deed contains the photographs of the vendor. The counter affidavit does not contain any specific denial of the contents of paragraph no.18 which in itself demonstrates that the vendor had herself executed the instant sale-deed and the instant FIR is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law.

7. Per contra learned Counsel for opposite party no 2 submits that during the course of investigation the investigating officer recorded the statements of multiple witnesses who had stated that the sale-deed dated 31.01.2015 does not contain the photographs of the vendor. He next submitted that even though the present dispute circumvallate around a property yet the act of the applicants of impersonation comes well within the ambit of criminal offences. He also submits that during the course of investigation the statement of the vendor was recorded where she had categorically stated that she had not executed any sale deed in the name of Mukeshi Devi and she had stated that neither any thumb impression nor any photographs are affixed on the sale deed, the applicants had colluded with each other and got 2 this sale-deed executed by impersonating someone else. The investigating officer after thorough investigation went on to the conclusion that the sale- deed is false and fabricated in view of which they have filed a charge-sheet dated 04.09.2015. He vehemently argued that there is no prima facie illegality and the jurisdictional Court has issued summons after applying judicial mind. Moreover the dispute in hand is one where the cloud of suspicion is on the identity of the vendor, hence, no interference is required at this stage as the real facts can only be ascertained in the course of trial.

8. From the perusal of 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the 3 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order date:-08.05.2025 Manish/S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4

quashing of entire proceedings of case no.696 of 2015 arising out of case crime no.132 of 2015, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Dauki, District Agra and the charge-sheet dated 04.09.2015 filed in the aforesaid case.

3. The facts of the case in the nutshell is that the FIR was registered on the pretext of the informant that the father of the informant namely Deep Singh had bought a piece of land after whose death his wife Smt. Ramrani succeeded the property which is situated at Ghata No. 532 total area comprising of 1.8250 Hectares with 1/4 part. Further she alleges that one Rakesh Babu , his wife Mukeshi Devi , Ramdhani , Sanju and Deepak have conspired with each other and got a false and fabricated sale deed dated

31.01.2015 in their name by impersonating someone else as her mother Smt Ramrani. In the same way she got her name mutated in the revnue records.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants summits that the applicants are completely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case only to put undue pressure on them. The entire prosecution story is completely false and the dispute is per se civil in nature . He further submits that the applicants are bonafide purchasers of the property and the allegation 1 of misuse of identity/impersonation cannot be fastened to them as the instant conveyance instrument is a registered sale deed and till date it has not been challenged before the competent court, hence, the criminal process cannot be set into motion.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further states that pursuant to the sale deed dated 31.01.2015 the applicant no.1, Mukeshi Devi had applied for mutating her name in the revenue records and vide order dated 23.03.2015 her name got mutated in the revenue records, and the same was not agitated by the vendor nor the informant before the competent court. He also submits that the vendor is a widow lady and had no other source of income and after the death of her husband in order to cope up with her liabilities she has sold the aforesaid property and the informant/opposite party no.2 who is the daughter of the vendor in order to extort more money had lodged the first information report on false and baseless allegations which is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants, has also pointed out that in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit he had made categorical averment that the aforesaid sale-deed contains the photographs of the vendor. The counter affidavit does not contain any specific denial of the contents of paragraph no.18 which in itself demonstrates that the vendor had herself executed the instant sale-deed and the instant FIR is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of law.

7. Per contra learned Counsel for opposite party no 2 submits that during the course of investigation the investigating officer recorded the statements of multiple witnesses who had stated that the sale-deed dated 31.01.2015 does not contain the photographs of the vendor. He next submitted that even though the present dispute circumvallate around a property yet the act of the applicants of impersonation comes well within the ambit of criminal offences. He also submits that during the course of investigation the statement of the vendor was recorded where she had categorically stated that she had not executed any sale deed in the name of Mukeshi Devi and she had stated that neither any thumb impression nor any photographs are affixed on the sale deed, the applicants had colluded with each other and got 2 this sale-deed executed by impersonating someone else. The investigating officer after thorough investigation went on to the conclusion that the sale- deed is false and fabricated in view of which they have filed a charge-sheet dated 04.09.2015. He vehemently argued that there is no prima facie illegality and the jurisdictional Court has issued summons after applying judicial mind. Moreover the dispute in hand is one where the cloud of suspicion is on the identity of the vendor, hence, no interference is required at this stage as the real facts can only be ascertained in the course of trial.

8. From the perusal of 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the 3 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order date:-08.05.2025 Manish/S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4