Madhumati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Order Criminal Revision 298/2023 is hereby rejected. Order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate/ FTC-II, Gonda dated 18.07.2023 is hereby affirmed. Consign as per law." Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in passing the impugned orders dated 18.07.2023 and 15.06.2024, the trial court as also the revisional court committed manifest error of law and fact both because from a bare reading of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the offence is made out against the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, as such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. Learned AGA, on the other hand, stated that the present application has no force and the same is not liable to be entertained by this Court for the reason that the trial court as also the revisional court considered the entire aspects of the case while passing the impugned orders including the facts pertaining to sale deed which according to the applicant was got executed and registered by playing fraud by the opposite party No. 3 in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and also the pending civil proceedings before the trial court and proposition settled in this regard. The prayer is to reject the instant application. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. Undisputedly, as appears from the record, in Gata No. 332 area 2.9500 hectare situated at Khargupur Imiliya, Gonda, Kedarnath is the co-sharer of 1/6 share and accordingly, prior to deeds in issue, he was the owner of 0.4910 hectare of Gata No. 332. The husband of the applicant namely Kedarnath executed a sale deed of 0.048 hectare of Gata No. 332 in favour of opposite party No. 2/Poonam Devi w/o Dinesh Kumar s/o Khub Chandra on 16.09.2022 registered at Serial No. 15048 from Page No. 173 to 188 of Zild Sankhya 12990. A gift deed executed and registered by the husband of the applicant namely Kedarnath on 16.09.2022, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 9 to this application, shows that the same was registered at Serial No. 15049 from Page No. 173 to 188 of Zild Sankhya 12990. This gift deed is in favour of the applicant, as per which, the applicant became owner in possession of remaining

0.4430 hectare of Gata No. 332. This gift deed indicates that 0.048 hectare of Gata No. 332 has already been sold. Both the aforesaid documents/deeds indicate that the witnesses who are common are Dinesh Kumar s/o Khub Chandra and Ram Gopal s/o Rajaram. From the aforesaid documents/deeds, it is further evident that the applicant was present at the time of execution and registration of sale deed favourable to the opposite party No. 2 and accordingly, this Court is of the view that the story setup in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is concocted. After the aforesaid transfer, the applicant filed a civil suit bearing No. 2913 of 2022 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda on 22.10.2022 for cancellation of sale deed. It further appears from the record that after filing of suit, which was filed in the month of August, 2022, the applicant preferred the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 23.03.2023. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of prima facie view that the trial court and also the revisional court have not committed any illegality or irregularity by passing the orders impugned dated 18.07.2023 and

15.06.2024. To the view of this Court, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant only to create pressure upon the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 so as to get some undue benefits and it is settled principle of law that the frivolous cases of such nature should not be entertained. In view of aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 19.7.2024 Arun/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6303 of 2024 Applicant :- Madhumati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar,Anand Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri Anand Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. The present applicant has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Judgment and order dated 15.06.2024, passed by the Session Judge, Gonda, in Criminal Revision No.298/2023 and order dated 18.07.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge(Jr.Div.)/Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C.- IInd, Gonda in Case No.1174/2023 upon the application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. parties "Madhumati Versus Poonam Devi and others" and pleased to direct for registration of First Information Report and fair and proper investigation in the matter." Relevant brief facts of this care are to the effect that vide order impugned dated 18.07.2023, the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Second)/Judicial Magistrate, Gonda (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") rejected the application preferred by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 1174 of 2023 (Madhumati vs. Poonam Devi and others). The order dated 18.07.2023 on reproduction reads as under:- " पततवललआददशहदततपदशहहई।पतरररनलकदववदतनअरधवकतककपतररनतपतअनतररतधतरत156(3) दणडपवकयतससवहततपरपपवरममसतनतरयत। पतरररनलमधतमतलपतनलकददतरनतरवनवतसलगतम-इवमरलयत, कसबतवरतनतखररपतर, रजलतरकणडत ककतरफसदववपकलरणपपनमददवलशतकलतपतनलशलवदनदशकतमतर, वदनदशकतमतरपत खपबचनद, वनवतसलरणगतम- ददवररयतखतस, रतनतखररपतर, रजलतरकणडतवरतमरकपतलपत रतजतरतम, वनवतसल पपरदहरवतहन, कसबतवरतनतखररपतर, रजलतरकणडतकदववरदपतररनतपतअनतररतधतरत-156(3) दणडपवकयतससवहततइसकरनकदसतरपसतत वकयतरयतहहवकपतरररनलकदपवतकददतरनतरपत रसरतपसतदकदनतमसदभपवम332/2-9500 हद०कद1/6 भतरससरतममजतखररपतरटतउनएररयतमम ससरतहह।पतरररनलकदपवतअपनदसवदचछतसदवदनतसक16.09.2022 ककपतरररनलकदपकममदतननतमत रलखनदरकणडतररज. कतयतरलयआयद, ववपकलसस. 2,3 ककरवतहबनतनदकदरलएबतलतकरलतएरदतरत ववपकलससखयत3 सतरममअपनलपतनलववपकलसस. 1 ककभललदकरआएवकइनकतरकणडतममइलतज करतनतहह।पतरररनलकदपवतनदपतरररनलकदपकममअपनदउकरतटतसस०मम44.30 हद. कतदतननतमत रलखतयतऔरउसलदतननतमतववलदखपरववपकलसस. 2,3 ममअपनद- अपनदबतमरहतरसयतरवतहकद रपममहसततकरबनतयत।ववपकलरणजकआपसममपपवरसदषडयसतवकएहहएरद, पतरररनलकददतननतमत कदरलखतईकददमरतनउकरतटतसस. 332 ममसद0.0490 हद०भपवमकतबहनतमतववपकलसस०1 पपनम ददवलकदपकममदसततवदजककपहलदपदशकरकदपपनमददवलकदपकममपसजलककतकरवतरलयततरतसतर हलसतरदतननतमतककपतरररनलकदपकममपदशहहआ।जकपतरररनलकदनतमदतननतमतववलदखकत पसजलयनवकयतरयत।इसपकतरववपकलरणनदआपसममसतठ- रतसठकपटरचनतकरतदहहएपतरररनलकद दतननतमतममरवतहबननदकदआडममववपकलसस०1 कदपकममकपटरवचतढसरसदबहनतमतकतपसजलयन करवतरलयतहहजकएककपटरवचतदसततवदजहह।पतरररनलकदपवतजकनशलललदवतकतअरधकसदवन करतदहह, रजससदवदअकसरबलमतररहतदहहरजसकतरणपतरररनलयहपतररनतपतददरहलहह।घटनतकक सपचनतवदनतसक29.09.2022 ककरतनतककतवतललनरर, रकणडतममवदयतरततरतवदनतसक 01.10.2022 ककपतरलसअधलककमहकदयरकणडत10.10.2022 ककडल०आई०जल०महकदय ददवलपतटनमणडलरकणडतएवसपतननवदनतसक16.11.2022 ककएस०पल०सतहबसदमतलतकततएवस वदनतसक01.03.2023 ककररज०सपचनतवदयतलदवकनआजतककहहसदककईकतयरवतहलनहहहहईहह इसरलएनयतयहदततशलमतनजलककपतररनतपतददनतपडत। उपरककमतमलदममससजदयअपरतधकतरठनहकरहतहहऔरजतलसतजलसदससबसरधतहहइसरलए मतकदमतदजरकरवतकरवववदचनतकरतयदजतनदककयतचनतककरयलहह। पतरररनलमधतमतलकदपतररनतपतकदसमबनधममरतनदसदआखयतआहहतककरयल।रतनदकक आखयतनतसतरपसतत मतमलदकदससबसधममरतनदपरअवभयकरपसजलककतनहहहह।पतरररनल/ आवदकदतरत अपनदपतररनतपतकद समररनममदतननतमतवदनतसवकत16.09.2022 एवसबहनतमतवदनतसवकत 16.09.2022 ककछतयतपवततरतपतरलसअधलकक, रकणडतककजररयदररजसटडरपदवषतपतकक ररजसटटलरसलददतरखलवकयतरयतहह। सतनततरतपततवललकतअवलककनवकयत। पततवललकदअवलककनएवसपतरररनल/ आवदकदतरतदतरखलदतननतनतवदनतसवकत16.09.2022 एवस बहनतमतवदनतसवकत16.09.2022 कद अवलककनसदपसतत मतमलतरसववलपककवतकतहकनत पररलवकतहकततहह।उकवतदपतककवतकपवतहममपसतत नहहवकयतरयतहह।ऐसलससरवतमम वनमनरलरखतववरधवयवसरतअवलककनलयहह- In Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 781 OF 2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: ....19 In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa[3], the two-judge Bench had to sa