Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser – FIR Quashed – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Arjun Dev and his wife Bela Rani were recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot No. 971M area 918 Aire and that they had executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of Rajan Kumar, who has since died.  On the basis of the said Power of Attorney, the said Rajan Kumar (since deceased) executed sale deeds in favour of the Appellant and his family members. One Smt. Beena Srivastava filed a Suit for cancellation of the Power of Attorney but that suit was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , but same was challenged before the High Court. That appeal was partly allowed with a direction on the Trial Court to return the plaint of the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court. Appellant instituted Original Suit No.608 of 2016 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur for permanent injunction in respect of the plots in question and temporary injunction had been granted in favour of the Appellant. This is recorded in the judgment and order under appeal. Rajan Kuma had executed the sale deed  in favour of the Appellant after receiving the sale consideration. After that Respondent No.2 filed an FIR that Randheer Singh and Rajan have created a False power of attorney. Appellant approached the Hight court to quash the FIR but same was not allowed. Appeal to Apex court , it has been held that charge sheet is totally vague. There is not even a whisper in the charge-sheet of what transpired from the investigation against the Appellant herein. Appeal Allowed , FIR Quashed. 

September 02, 2021

RANDHEER SINGH  VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 

Latest Legal News