Cognizance Without Role or Evidence Is Judicial Casualty: Allahabad High Court Quashes 25-Year-Old Land Fraud Case Against Appellant

“When Criminal Law Is Invoked to Settle Revenue Disputes, It Becomes a Weapon, Not a Remedy,” In a compelling judgment Allahabad High Court, speaking through Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the appellant Maloo in a decades-old land allotment fraud case, declaring that the prosecution was founded on "assumptions, conjectures, and mechanical application of law" and that continuing it would result in “miscarriage of justice.”

The case, registered under Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, pertained to alleged fraudulent allotment and transfer of agricultural land pattas granted in 1997. The FIR invoked Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant was not named in the FIR, and the only material against him was a charge-sheet that the Court held to be “fabricated and devoid of legal foundation.”

Setting aside the cognizance and summoning order dated 20.03.2023, Justice Yadav emphatically held:

“No specific role, no overt act, and no iota of material against the appellant – the summoning order is mechanical and reflects non-application of judicial mind.”

“Dead Witnesses Cannot Testify From the Grave”: Court Slams Fabricated Charge Sheet Based on Statements of Deceased Persons

While examining the charge-sheet dated 06.02.2023, the Court made a stunning revelation that five of the prosecution witnesses had died long before the investigation even began, yet their statements were shown as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

In strong words, the Court declared:

“The investigation stands vitiated – recording statements of deceased persons exposes the fabricated, tainted and unreliable nature of the prosecution.”

The Court observed that “such glaring illegality in investigation not only undermines the fairness of the process but also destroys the credibility of the entire prosecution case.” It further added that “continuing the proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of judicial process.”

“Vague Allegations and Civil Disputes Cannot Trigger Criminal Law”: High Court Reiterates Limits of Penal Jurisdiction

Justice Yadav firmly held that the entire dispute, spanning over two and a half decades, was “predominantly civil and revenue in nature”, and that there was no prima facie material to invoke criminal law. The Court noted that no party had ever initiated civil or revenue proceedings to cancel the pattas or sale deeds in question, and the sudden FIR filed in 2022 lacked both explanation and credibility.

“Criminal prosecution cannot be used to circumvent civil remedies or to revive long-forgotten land disputes,” the Court remarked.
“When the criminal justice system is used as a substitute for civil litigation, the process itself becomes oppressive.”

The FIR was lodged by a Revenue Inspector in his official capacity, and not by any aggrieved pattadar or victim. The Court found that the informant himself admitted ignorance of any personal knowledge, stating that records were available in office files.

“No Caste-Based Intent, No Offence Under SC/ST Act”: Court Warns Against Mechanical Use of Special Laws

On the invocation of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court decisively held that no material disclosed that the alleged acts were committed “on the ground” of the victim’s caste, as mandated under Section 3(1)(f).

Quoting from Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Court reiterated:

“Offences under the SC/ST Act must be committed because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – mere reference to caste is not enough.”

It added,

“Where land disputes arise, even involving SC/ST persons, the mere invocation of the Act without the necessary intent renders the prosecution illegal.”

“Delay Defeats Equity, Even More So in Criminal Law”: High Court Flags 25-Year Inaction as Fatal

A key aspect of the judgment was the extraordinary and unexplained delay in registering the FIR. The Court observed:

“The alleged transactions occurred in 1997. Even assuming irregularities came to light in 2016, the FIR was still lodged after 7 more years in 2022, without explanation.”

Justice Yadav held that such a delay, “combined with absence of civil action, makes the prosecution inherently improbable.” Relying on Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734, the Court observed:

“Unexplained delay becomes a strong ground for quashing proceedings, especially where it renders the case implausible.”

“Equality Before Law Demands Parity in Relief”: Appellant Entitled to Same Protection as Co-Accused

The Court noted that similarly placed co-accused in the same case had been granted relief by coordinate benches of the High Court. The appellant's role, according to the Court, was neither distinguishable nor more serious than that of others already protected.

Justice Yadav declared:

“In the absence of any additional or distinguishing material, denying similar protection to the appellant would be arbitrary and discriminatory.”

In conclusion, the Court stated that there was “no whisper of evidence” against the appellant to show mens rea, conspiracy, or active participation in any fraudulent act, and that:

“Criminal law cannot be invoked to serve administrative or revenue agendas.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, and quashed the cognizance order, charge-sheet, and entire proceedings, warning that continued prosecution would be a travesty of justice.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025