SAVITRI PANDEY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

                   [2015] 4 S.C.R. 633


            SAVITRI PANDEY AND ANOTHER                       A

                            v.

              STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

            (Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2015)                B

                      May 01, 2015.

     [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

     Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ petition - C
Seeking quashing of FIR - Maintainability of - In the State
of Uttar Pradesh - Held: In view of the fact that provision for
anticipatory bail uls 438 Cr. PC was deleted in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, writ petition challenging FIR is maintainable.
                                                             0
    FIR-Quashingof-F/Rulss.420, 467, 468, 471, 1208,
504 and 506 /PC - Writ petition for quashing the FIR -
Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Facts of the
present case indicate abuse of process of law on the part of
the complainant - FIR liable to be quashed - Penal Code, E
1860 - ss.420, 467, 468, 4 71, 1208, 504 and 506 -
Administration of Criminal Justice.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                           F
    HELD: 1. In view of the position of law that provision
for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.PC has been deleted in
the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the present case, it cannot
be said that the writ petition challenging the First
Information Report before the High Court was not G
maintainable. [para 1O] [637-H] [638-A]

   Ram Lal Yadav and others v. State of U.P and others
1989 CriLJ 1013, Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka
                        633                            H
634         SUPREMECOU~TREPORTS                   [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A     (2008) 3 SCC 753 - relied on.

       2. Certain facts are glaring, indicating the abuse of
  process of law on the part of the complainant, viz. (a) In
  respect of registered sale deeds the complainant has
s woken up after a period of nineteen years to allege that
  the registered sale deeds are fraudulent, (b) In the
  counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, it is
  nowhere stated that she ever filed suit for cancellation
  of the sale deeds alleging that the sale deeds were
C fraudulent till date, (c) Admittedly, parties are close
  relatives, had their joint property in the village, out of
  which properties have been sold through the disputed
  sale deeds, and (d) No specific role has been assigned
  to the present appellants as to their role for execution of
D the sale deeds in question. Therefore, the FIR is liable to
  be quashed. [para 11-12] [638-B-F, H] [639-A]

                         Case Law Reference

E     1989 CriLJ 1013            relied on            para 8

      (2008) 3 sec 753           relied on            para 8

          CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal
      No. 741 of2015.
F
           From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2014 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ
      Petition No. 2167 of 2014.

G         Sanjay Singh, Rajeev Singh for the Appellants.

     Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Gaurav Srivastava, Abhishek
  Chaudhary, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Kripa Suankar Prasad,
  Sukanta Kumar Biswal, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the
H Respondents.
            SAVITRI PANDEYv. STATE OF U.P.                        635


    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                       A

    PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1.          Leave granted.

     2. This appeal is directed against order dated 31.1.2014,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
                                                                     8
Misc. Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2014 whereby said Court has
dismissed the writ petition challenging the First Information
Report, registered as Crime No. 16 of 2014, relating to
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 1208,
504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station            C
Milak, District Rampur.

    3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.

     4. Brieffacts of the case are that respondent No. 4 Damitri D
Pandey, lodged First Information Report on 8.1.2014 at Police
Station Milak, Rampur, in respect of above offences against
as many as fifteen accused stating that in respect of land owned
by her, which was part of Khasra No. 148 in VillageAsdullapur,
three sale deeds (at different dates) were fraudulently got E
executed in favour of different persons in the year 1994. The
present appellants have been named as accused Nos. 14 and
15 in the First Information Report, but no specific role has been
assigned to them. It is admitted to the parties that complainant F
(respondent No. 4) is real sister-in-law of appellant No. 1, and
appellant No. 2 (Raju Pandey) is son of appellant No. 1. It is
also admitted that the land in question was joint family property
of the appellants, respondent No. 4 and other members of the
family.                                                           G

     5. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No. 4, (complainant) it is stated that though no
specific role of the present appellants has been disclosed in
First Information Report, but it is clearly mentioned that since     H
636          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015]4S.C.R.


A     they have played important role, as such, they had colluded in
      the fraud in execution of the sale deeds in dispute.

             6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.
      1 to 3 by Dr. Tejveer Singh, Circle Officer, Milak, District Rampur,
s     it is stated at the end of paragraph 2(vii) as under: -

            "it is further pertinent to mention here that as on date
            neither the petitioners nor respondent No. 4 are
            participating I supporting in the investigation."
c      7. It is argued before us on behalf of the appellants that
  the impugned First Information Report is nothing but abuse of
  process of law, and it is simple property dispute between family
  members. It is further contended that the High Court has erred
D in law in not granting relief to the appellants. On the other hand,
  learned counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 4)
  contended that it is a matter of investigation as to whether
  impersonation was done, if so, who impersonated in getting
  executed the sale deeds in question, in respect of land of the
E complainant.
       8. It is further pointed out on behalf of learned counsel for
  the State (respondent No. 1) that in a Seven-Judge Bench
  decision of Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal Yadav and
  others v. State of U.P. and others 1, since it has been held
F that the High Court cannot interfere with the investigation by
  police, in its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as such, for
  the relief of quashing of First Information Report writ petitions
  are entertained in said High Court.

G           9. In Som Mittalv. Government of Karnataka 2 , following
      observations have been made by this Court regarding the
      difficulties faced by the accused due to deletion of provision

      1989 CriLJ 1013

H     (2008) 3 sec 753
            SAVITRI PANDEYv. STATE OF U.P.                          637
                [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

under Section 438 Cr.P.C.: -                                         A

     "38. In this connection, I would also like to refer to the
     situation prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh where
     due to deletion of the provision for anticipatory bail under
     Section 438 Cr.P.C by Section 9 of U.P.Act 16of1976,            B
     huge difficulties have been created both for the public
     as well as for the Allahabad High Court.

     39. It may be noted that in U.P. such provision for
     anticipatory bail has been deleted while it continues to C
     exist in all other States in India, even in terrorist affected
     States. The result is that thousands of petitions under
     Section 482 are filed every year in the Allahabad High
     Court praying for stay of arrest or for quashing the FIR,
     because in the absence of the provision of anticipatory D
     bail many persons who are innocent cannot get
     anticipatory bail even though the FIR filed against them
     may be frivolous and/or false. Even if such persons get
     regular bail under Section 439, before that they will have
     to go to jail, and thus their reputation in society may be E
     irreparably tarnished.

              xxx                    xxx          . xxx
     45. Because of absence of the provision for anticipatory F
     bail in U.P. thousands of writ petitions and Section 482
     Cr.P.C applications are being filed in the Allahabad High
     Court praying for stay of the petitioner's arrest and/or
     quashing the FIR. This is unnecessarily increasing the
     workload of the High Court and adding to the arrears, G
     apart from the hardship to the public, and overcrowding
     in jails."

    10. In view of the above position of law in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, in the present case, it cannot be said that the H
638           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 4 S.C.R..


A     writ petiti0n challenging the First Information Report before the
      High Court was not maintainable.

          11. Now, we have to examine as to whether in the present
      case the High Court has erred in law or not in declining to
 B    quash the First Information Report. In this connection, some
      facts are glaring, indicating the abuse of process of law on the
      part of the complainant, which are as under: -

        (a)    In respect of registered sale deeds executed in the year
c             1994, the com12lainant has woken u12 in the year 2014,
              i.e., after a 12eriod of nineteen years to allege that the
              registered sale deeds are fraudulent.

        (b)   In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
              No. 4, it is nowhere stated that he ever filed suit for
D
              cancellation of the sale deeds before any civil court
              alleging that the sale deeds were fraudulent till date.

        (c)   Admittedly, 12arties are close relatives, had their joint
              property in the village, out of which properties have been
 E            sold through the disputed sale deeds.

        (d)   No specific role has been assigned to the present
              appellants Savitri Pandey and Raju Pandey as to in what
              manner they have played their role for execution of the
 F            sale deeds in question.

          12. In view of the above facts read together, we have no
  difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that in the present case the
  First Information Report in question is nothing but abuse of
G process of law on the part of the complainant, and the First
  Information Report is liable to be quashed. As such, we hold
  that the High Court has erred in law in not allowing the writ
  petition in the above facts and circumstances of the case.
          13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The First
H
             SAVITRI PANDEYv. STATE OF U.P.                   639
                 [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

Information Report, lodged against the present appellants,     A
stands quashed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy                         Appeal allowed.



                                                               B