Sada Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Sada Singh vs State of U.P.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 28, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/492285

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/492285
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.K. Rathi, J.
Decided On: Feb 28, 2002
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 1347 of 2002
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 177, 181, 193, 218, 406, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 193, 195, 195(1), 197 and 340

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sada Singh

Advocate Lakshmi Kant Davey, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 177, 181, 193, 218, 406, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 193, 195, 195(1), 197 and 340
Cases Referred: Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar
Reported In: 2002CriLJ3686

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....offence under sections 120b, 218, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 i.p.c. pending in the court of 1st additional judicial magistrate. shahjahanpur.2. i have heard sri l. k. davey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned a. g. a.3. in brief the facts are that the petitioner had two other brothers, namely, dilip singh and mahendra singh. the name of the petitioner was mutated on the application of the petitioner on the entire land of his two brothers for the reason that they died issueless. later on mahendra singh appeared and lodged an f.i.r. that he was wrongly shown to have died and the name of the petitioner was got mutated in his place by practising fraud on the basis of forged documents. that the death certificate filed by the applicant is also forged. the case was registered and investigated and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.4. the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution is barred by sections 195 and 197 cr.p.c. as the documents were filed in the judicial proceedings but no complaint has been made by the court and therefore, the trial cannot proceed.5. sri l. k. davey, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the argument has referred to the several cases.6. the first case referred to is state of punjab v. raj singh 1998 (36) all cri c 399 : air 1998 sc 768 decided by the apex court. in this case, the high court quashed the f. i. r. being barred by section 195(1)(b) cr. p. c. the apex court set aside the order of the high court and observed that the f.i.r. is not barred by the said provision and it will have to be considered whether the prosecution is barred by section 195(1)(b) cr.p.c. when the charge sheet is filed after the completion of the investigation. therefore, no law which may support the argument of the learned counsel, was laid down in this case.7. the other case referred to is tukaram annaba chavan v. machindra yashwant-patil 2001 (2) jic, 65 : air 2001 sc 994. it is also.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

B.K. Rathi, J.

1. The request has been made to quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal case No. 740 of 2001 for offence under Sections 120B, 218, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C. pending in the Court of 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate. Shahjahanpur.

2. I have heard Sri L. K. Davey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.

3. In brief the facts are that the petitioner had two other brothers, namely, Dilip Singh and Mahendra Singh. The name of the petitioner was mutated on the application of the petitioner on the entire land of his two brothers for the reason that they died issueless. Later on Mahendra Singh appeared and lodged an F.I.R. that he was wrongly shown to have died and the name of the petitioner was got mutated in his place by practising fraud on the basis of forged documents. That the death certificate filed by the applicant is also forged. The case was registered and investigated and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.

4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution is barred by Sections 195 and 197 Cr.P.C. as the documents were filed in the judicial proceedings but no complaint has been made by the Court and therefore, the trial cannot proceed.

5. Sri L. K. Davey, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the argument has referred to the several cases.

6. The first case referred to is State of Punjab v. Raj Singh 1998 (36) All Cri C 399 : AIR 1998 SC 768 decided by the Apex Court. In this case, the High Court quashed the F. I. R. being barred by Section 195(1)(b) Cr. P. C. the Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and observed that the F.I.R. is not barred by the said provision and it will have to be considered whether the prosecution is barred by Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. when the charge sheet is filed after the completion of the investigation. Therefore, no law which may support the argument of the learned counsel, was laid down in this case.

7. The other case referred to is Tukaram Annaba Chavan v. Machindra Yashwant-Patil 2001 (2) JIC, 65 : AIR 2001 SC 994. It is also decided by the Apex Court. In this case, the complaint was filed for offences under Sections 177, 181, 193, 406, 465, 474 I.P.C. The Magistrate issued processes under Sections 463/34 I.P.C. only. The matter was challenged on the ground that the complaint could be lodged by Charity Commissioner and not by the private person. The allegation of the complaint was that the accused got affixed fake signatures of educational institution and 'got registered changes in change report before Charity Commissioner. It was found that the matter was pending before the Charity Commissioner, who is to determine the validity of the changed report. Therefore, the matter before criminal Court was suspended till the disposal of proceeding before Assistant Charity Commissioner. Therefore, this authority does not lay down any law regarding the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

8. The last case referred to is M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana 2000 SCC (Cri) 193 : AIR 2000 SC 168. In this case, the Apex Court found in earlier writ petition that the affidavit has been filed with forged signatures and that false statements 'were given. Therefore, after a show cause notice conviction under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The writ petition was filed to set aside the conviction, in which it was held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court should have filed a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and could not have recorded conviction and, therefore, the conviction was set aside. This authority therefore, has also no application in the present case.

9. The relevant law which is applicable in the present case was laid down by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sachinda Nand Singh v. State of Bihar 1998 (36) All Cr C 466 : AIR 1998 SC 1121. In view of the law laid down in this case, the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. does not apply in the present case where the forgery was committed before the documents were filed in the Court.

10. Therefore, in view of the above I find that there is no bar for prosecution of the petitioner for the above offences.

11. The petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Sada Singh vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.K. Rathi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 120B, 177, 181, 193, 2...

Criminal