# Badri Vishal Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 353
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 23474 of 2016
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/badri-vishal-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47825
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - UP Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule 7(5) - Stamp
deficiency - Inquiry - Scope - Solely the
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ex-parte report relied upon in passing the
impugned order, how far is permissible -
No information from any public officer
was called by the Collector - No other
record or evidence was examined - Effect
-
Held,
it
is
after
considering
the
representations
of
the
parties
and
examining
the
records
and
other
evidences
that
the
Collector
is
to
determine the value of the subject matter
of the instrument and the duty payable -
No inquiry having been conducted by the
competent authority prior to passing the
impugned order, the order would be
vitiated on this ground also. (Para 16, 18
and 21 )
B. Stamp deficiency - Penalty, when can
be imposed - Concealment of relevant
fact - Relevancy - Gyan Prakash's case
relied
upon
-
Sine
qua
non
for
imposition of penalty is a finding to be
recorded by the competent authority
based on relevant materials that the
purchaser or the person liable to pay
stamp duty had concealed relevant facts
in execution of the sale deed - No
finding on the concealment of relevant
fact - Held, the impugned order does not
indicate nor records any finding by the
competent authority that the purchaser
had
concealed
relevant
facts
in
execution of the sale deed and had the
intention to evade the payment of stamp
duty. As such on this ground alone the
imposition of penalty on the petitioner
cannot be said to be legally sustainable
in the eyes of law. (Para 22 and 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Badri Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
present petition. As to who can prefer an
Election Petition, section 81 of the
Representation
of
People
Act,
1950
provides that an Election Petition may be
presented by (a) any elector or; (b) any
candidate at such election. Further the
explanation to section 81 provides that an
elector means a person who was entitled to
vote at the election to which the Election
Petition relates. In the present case, the
Petitioner has admitted that he is not an
elector registered in the 322 - Gorakhpur
Urban Legislative Assembly. Therefore,
this court finds that the petitioner does not
have any locus for filing the present writ
petition as has also been held in the case of
Tej Bahadur vs. Narendra Modi (2020)
SCC Online SC 951, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex court held that the locus for filing an
Election Petition depends entirely on the
question whether a particular person is an
elector of the constituency or is a candidate
or can claim to be a duly nominated
candidate. The Petitioner fails to fall in any
of the category to make the present petition
maintainable.

11. The courts have also from time to
time held that no litigant has a right to
unlimited draught on the court time and
public money in order to get his affairs
settled in a manner as he wishes. Easy
access to justice should not be misused as a
licence to file misconceived and frivolous
petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr.
K. Parasaran, (1996 (7) JT 265) as is being
sought to be done in the present case. The
court cannot be oblivious to the fact that
today people rush to Courts to file cases in
profusion under this attractive name of
public interest.

12. Further, the petitioner has failed to
show from records as to how the
appointment or the continuation of the
respondent in the Chief Minister post is not
in accordance with law. Recently the bench
of HMJ D.Y Chandrachud & HMJ Hima
Kohli in the case of "State of West Bengal
Vs Anindya Sundar Das" .........., while
referring to various judgments including
Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018)
6 SCC 162, observed that the issue is no
longer res integra relating to the settled
position that the writ of quo warranto can
be issued only where an appointment has
not been made in accordance with the law.

13. For all the aforesaid reason the
present petition is dismissed, however since
valuable time has been spent by this court
on atleast two occasions, therefore this
court finds it appropriate to impose an
exemplary cost of Rs. 11,000/- on the
petitioner, which shall be paid to State legal
Services Authority Within four weeks from
today.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 353
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 23474 of 2016

Badri Vishal Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Kunal Chandra Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Section 47-A - UP Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 - Rule 7(5) - Stamp
deficiency - Inquiry - Scope - Solely the
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ex-parte report relied upon in passing the
impugned order, how far is permissible -
No information from any public officer
was called by the Collector - No other
record or evidence was examined - Effect
-
Held,
it
is
after
considering
the
representations
of
the
parties
and
examining
the
records
and
other
evidences
that
the
Collector
is
to
determine the value of the subject matter
of the instrument and the duty payable -
No inquiry having been conducted by the
competent authority prior to passing the
impugned order, the order would be
vitiated on this ground also. (Para 16, 18
and 21 )
B. Stamp deficiency - Penalty, when can
be imposed - Concealment of relevant
fact - Relevancy - Gyan Prakash's case
relied
upon
-
Sine
qua
non
for
imposition of penalty is a finding to be
recorded by the competent authority
based on relevant materials that the
purchaser or the person liable to pay
stamp duty had concealed relevant facts
in execution of the sale deed - No
finding on the concealment of relevant
fact - Held, the impugned order does not
indicate nor records any finding by the
competent authority that the purchaser
had
concealed
relevant
facts
in
execution of the sale deed and had the
intention to evade the payment of stamp
duty. As such on this ground alone the
imposition of penalty on the petitioner
cannot be said to be legally sustainable
in the eyes of law. (Para 22 and 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Surendra Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2009 (27) LCD 442
2. Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.; 2005 All CJ 1899 U.P.
3. Gyan Prakash Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2019
(143) RD 185
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents no. 1 to 4.

2. The instant petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 15.04.2005 passed
by Respondent No. 3 and annexed as
Annexure No.1 to the instant Writ Petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 26.02.2014 passed
by the Respondent No. 2 and annexed as
Annexure No. 2 to the instant Writ Petition.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to refund the amount of Rs
1,64,675/- deposited by the petitioiner on
27.07.2005 through Treasury Challan209(1) along with 12% compound interest
from 27.04.2005 till the date of actual
payment.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to proceed with recovery in
pursuance of the aforesaid impugned order
dated
26.02.2014
(as
contained
in
Annexure-2 to this Writ Petition) or the
impugned Order dated 15.04.2005 (as
contained in Annexure-1 to this Writ
Petition) and not to issue any consequential
recovery
notice/citation/certificate
with
respect to the land bearing Gata No. 81,
Area:0.240 1⁄2 Hectare, situated at Village
Sohramau, Pargana Gausinda Parsanad,
Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that a plot of land was purchased by him
through
a
registered
sale
deed
on
10.09.2004. The land was registered as
agricultural land in the revenue records and
11 All. Badri Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
consequently stamp duty at agricultural
rates was paid. The petitioner claims to
have received a show cause notice from the
respondent no. 3 alleging evasion of stamp
duty under the provisions of Section 47A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act, 1899). It is
contended that the proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner on the basis
of a report dated 04.10.2004 submitted by
the
Sub-Registrar,
Hasanganj
District
Unnao, a copy of which is annexure 3 to
the petition. The petitioner claims to have
filed his reply to the show cause notice on
15.03.2005, a copy of which is annexure 7
to the petition, and the respondents no. 3
passed an order dated 15.04.2005, a copy
of which is annexure 1 to the petition,
whereby the petitioner had been required to
pay a stamp duty of Rs 3,29,350/-
alongwith penalty and interest. The penalty
imposed
upon
the
petitioner
is
Rs
1,64,675/-.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed
an appeal which has been rejected vide the
order dated 26.02.2014, a copy of which is
annexure 2 to the petition. Being aggrieved
with both the orders, the instant petition has
been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that a perusal of the impugned
order dated 15.04.2005 would indicate that
the basis of the impugned order is the exparte report dated 04.10.2004 which had
been submitted by the Sub-Registrar
Hasanganj, District Unnao. It is contented
that although the petitioner while filing his
reply has indicated in paragraph 7 that on
legal advice the trees standing on the plot
in question could not be valued yet by no
stretch of imagination can the same be said
to be acceptance of the ex-parte report
dated 04.10.2004.

6. He contends that the authority
concerned while passing the impugned
order dated 04.10.2004 has placed reliance
on the said report and has not given any
finding with respect to his own assessment
while passing the order impugned by which
the petitioner has been found to have paid
less stamp duty and requiring the petitioner
to pay stamp duty at the rates as indicated
in the impugned order. He also contends
that this aspect of the matter has not been
considered by the appellate authority while
rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

7. Elaborating his argument learned
counsel for the petitioner argues that
though it is not mandatory for the
competent authority to call for any
information or record from any public
office or for that matter any report while
passing the order under the provisions of
the Act, 1899 yet Rule 7(5) of the U.P.
Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1997)
specifically provides that an order is to be
passed on the basis of an ''inquiry' by the
competent authority.

8. He contends that a perusal of the
impugned order dated 15.04.2005 would
indicate that no ''inquiry' has been held as
provided under the provisions of Rule 7(5)
of the Rules 1997 and the sole basis of the
order
is
the
ex-parte
report
dated
04.10.2004 with which the petitioner was
never confronted at any stage nor the said
inspection was made in the presence of the
petitioner.

9. Placing reliance on the judgement
of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh
and another vs State of U.P. and others
reported in 2009 (27) LCD 442 wherein
this Court had placed reliance on an earlier
judgement of this Court in the case of Ram
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Khelawan @ Bachcha vs State of U.P.
and another reported in 2005 All CJ 1899
U.P. to hold that though the report may be
a
relevant
factor
for
initiation
of
proceedings under Section 47A of the Act,
but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order
under the aforesaid section in as much as
the said report cannot form itself the basis
of the order passed under Section 47A of
the Act. He thus contends that keeping in
view the law laid down by this Court in the
case of Surendra Singh (supra) the
impugned order merits to be quashed on
this ground alone.

10. So far as the penalty imposed by
means of the impugned order dated
15.04.2005 is concerned, reliance has been
placed on the judgement of this Court in
the case of Gyan Prakash vs State of U.P.
and others reported in 2019 (143) RD 185
to contend that this Court has held that the
sine qua non for imposition of penalty is
the finding of the authority concerned of a
deliberate attempt on the part of the
purchaser or the person liable for payment
of stamp duty, to have concealed the
relevant facts in execution of the sale deed
and the intention to evade payment of
stamp duty. He contends that a perusal of
the impugned order would indicate that no
such findings have been arrived at by the
competent authority while imposing the
penalty and as such on this ground alone
the imposition of penalty imposed upon the
petitioner merits to be set aside.

11. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel on the basis of the
averments
contained
in
the
counter
affidavit argues that a perusal of the reply
that had been filed by the petitioner to the
show cause notice would itself indicate that
the petitioner had admitted the report and
as such the authority concerned had no
option but to place reliance on the report
dated
04.10.2004
while
passing
the
impugned order. He thus contends that as
no objections were filed to the said report
as such it cannot be said that the report was
wrong and that the order impugned reflects
non-application of mind and has not
considered other material that might have
been on record and as such there was no
requirement of holding of any further
''inquiry' as specified in Rule 7(5) of the
Rules 1997.

12. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

13. From the arguments raised by
learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of record it emerges that the land
was purchased by the petitioner by means
of a registered sale deed dated 10.09.2004.
Proceedings were initiated against the
petitioners under the provisions of the Act
1899 on the basis of a report dated
04.10.2004 which had been submitted by
the authority which occasioned issuance of
a show cause notice by the authority
competent calling upon the petitioner to file
his reply. The petitioner filed his reply in
which he admitted that on account of legal
advice the trees which were existing over
the land could not be indicated. The
authority concerned proceeded to pass the
impugned order dated 15.04.2005 solely
placing reliance over the report dated
04.10.2004 which was the basis of the
initiation of the proceedings under the
provisions of the Act 1899.

14. Perusal of the impugned order
would indicate that no other material has
been considered by the authority while
passing the impugned order finding the
petitioner to have paid less stamp duty and
requiring the petitioner to pay the Stamp
11 All. Badri Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
Duty at a particular amount and also
imposing penalty thereupon.

15. This Court in the case of
Surendra Singh (supra) has held that a
report on the basis of which proceedings
was initiated against the provisions of the
Act 1899 may be relevant for initiation of
proceedings but it cannot be relied upon
to pass an order under the said Section in
as much as the said report cannot itself
form basis of the order passed under
Section 47A of the Act. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant observation of
this Court in the case of Surendra Singh
(supra) are reproduced below:

"13. None of the authorities below
besides the report of the Sub-Registrar has
referred any other material in support of
their orders. In Ram Khelawan @ Bachha
v.
State
of
U.P.
through
Collector,
Hamirpur and another, 2005 (98) RD 511,
it has been held that the report of the
Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for
initiation of the proceedings under Section
47A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon
to pass an order under the aforesaid
section. In other words, the said report
cannot form itself basis of the order passed
under Section 47A of the Act. In the case of
Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293 (para
17), the ambit and scope of Section 47A of
the Act has been considered with some
depth.
Taking
into
consideration
the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agrawal v.
State of U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD
253 and various other cases it has been
held that under Section 47A(3) of the Act,
the burden lay upon the Collector to prove
that the market value is more than
minimum as prescribed by the Collector
under the Rules. The report of the SubRegistrar and Tehsildar itself is not
sufficient to discharge that burden."

16. Accordingly, when the impugned
order dated 15.04.2005 is seen in the
context of the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Surendra Singh (Supra)
what the Court finds is that the impugned
order does not indicate about any other
material having been considered by the
authority concerned rather the very basis of
the order impugned is the report dated
04.10.2004 which obviously cannot be
relied upon while passing the impugned
order.

17. At this stage the Court may also
consider the provisions of Section 7(5) of
the
Rules
1997 which
requires
the
competent authority to pass an order after
making of an ''inquiry' as specified under
Rule 7 of the Rules 1997. For the sake of
convenience Rule 7 of the Rules 1997 is
quoted below:

"Rule 7. Procedure on receipt of a
reference or when suo motu action is
proposed under Section 47-A--

(1) On receipt of a reference or where
action is proposed to be taken suo motu
under Section 47-A, the Collector shall
issue notice to parties to the instrument to
show cause within thirty days of the receipt
of such notice as to why the market value of
the property set forth in the instrument and
the duty payable thereon be not determined
by him.

(2) The Collector may admit oral or
documentary evidence, if any, produced by
the parties to the instrument and call for
and examine the original instrument to
satisfy himself as to the correctness of the
market value of the subject-matter of the
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instrument and for determining the duty
payable thereon.

(3) The Collector may:

(a) call for any information or record
from any public office, officer or authority
under the government or local authority;

(b) examine and record the statement
of any public officer or authority under the
Government or local authority;

(c) inspect the property after due
notice to the parties to the instrument.

(4)
After
considering
the
representation of the parties, if any, and
examining the records and other evidence,
the Collector shall determine the market
value of the subject matter of the
instrument and the duty payable thereon.

(5) If, as a result of such inquiry, the
market value is found to be fully and truly
set forth and the instrument duly stamped
according to such value, it shall be
returned to the person who made the
reference with a certificate to that effect. A
copy of such certificate shall also be sent to
the Registering officer concerned.
(6) If, as a result of such inquiry, the market
value is found to be undervalued and not
duly stamped, necessary action shall be
taken in respect of it according to relevant
provisions of the Act."

18. From a perusal of Rule 7 of the
Rules 1997 it emerges that on receipt of
reference or where action is proposed to be
taken suo motu under Section 47A, the
Collector shall issue a notice to the parties
requiring them to show cause as to why the
market value of the property set forth in the
instrument and the duty payable thereon be
not determined by him. The Collector may
admit oral or documentary evidence, if any,
produced by the parties to the instrument
and may also call for and examine the
original instrument to satisfy himself
regarding the correctness of the market
value of the subject matter of the
instrument
for
determining
the
duty
payable. The Collector may also call for
information or records from any public
office, officer or authority or examine and
record the statement of any public officer
or authority and inspect the property. It is
after considering the representations of the
parties and examining the records and other
evidences that the Collector is to determine
the value of the subject matter of the
instrument and the duty payable.

19. Subsequently, if as a result of
such ''inquiry' as aforesaid, the market
value is found to be correct then no action
is required but if the instrument is found to
be undervalued then necessary action has to
be taken under the relevant provisions of
the Act.

20. The word ''inquiry' has been
defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as under:

"A request for information, either
procedural or substantive."

From a perusal of the definition clause
as given in the Blacks Law Dictionary it
emerges that an ''inquiry' is a request for
information
either
procedural
or
substantive.

21. In the instant case the entire action
under the provisions of the Act 1899 has
been initiated on the basis of the report
dated 04.10.2004. The perusal of the
impugned order dated 15.04.2005 would
indicate that the Collector has not called for
any information from any public office, has
not examined and recorded the statement of
any public officer and inspected the
property after due notice to the parties. No
other records or evidence have been
examined by the competent authority as
11 All. Badri Vishal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
would be apparent from the perusal of the
impugned order. Thus, it is apparent that no
''inquiry' as stipulated in Sub Rule (5) of the
Rule (7) of the Rules 1997 has been held by
the competent authority prior to passing the
impugned order dated 15.04.2005 rather, as
already indicated above, the basis of the
impugned order is simply the ex-parte
report dated 04.10.2004 which, as per the
law laid down by this Court in the case of
Surendra Singh (supra), could not have
been considered. Thus, this Court is
constrained to hold that no inquiry having
been conducted by the competent authority
prior to passing the impugned order dated
15.04.2005, the order would be vitiated on
this ground also.

22. So far as the imposition of penalty
by means of the impugned order dated
15.04.2005 is concerned, this Court in the
case of Gyan Prakash (supra) has held
that the sine qua non for imposition of
penalty is a finding to be recorded by the
competent authority based on relevant
materials that the purchaser or the person
liable to pay stamp duty had concealed
relevant facts in execution of the sale deed
and had the intention to evade payment of
stamp duty. For the sake of convenience,
the relevant paragraphs of the judgement in
the case of Gyan Prakash (supra) are
reproduced below.

"38. The next aspect of the matter is
the legality of the penalty which has been
imposed upon the petitioner of Rs.50,000/-.
In this regard, suffice would be to refer the
judgment of this Court in the case of Varun
Gopal vs State of U.P. and others 2015 (2)
ADJ 311, wherein this Court has held as
under:-

"29. Penalty can be imposed, if there
is an attempt to evade stamp duty. Penalty
presupposes culpability and an intention to
conceal or to play fraud with authorities.
Before imposing penalty, authorities must
record finding based on relevant material
that the purchaser or the person liable to
pay stamp duty had concealed relevant
facts in execution of sale deed and had
intention to evade payment of stamp duty.
(Asha
Kapoor
(Smt.)
v.
Additional
Collector
(Finance
and
Revenue),
Ghaziabad16)."

39. Likewise this Court in the case of
Smt. Sonia Jindal vs State of U.P. and
others, in Writ C No.20357 of 2011 decided
on 07.04.2011 has held as under:-

"There is no dispute with regard to
power of the authorities under the Stamp
Act to impose penalty to the extent of four
times the deficiency in stamp duty.
However, the question is as to what is the
criteria for imposing penalty.

The purpose for imposing penalty in
exercise of power under Section 47-A (4) of
the Act is to dissuade persons from
deliberately under valuing the instrument
and from payment of insufficient stamp
duty. The purpose is not to make good the
loss caused due to non-payment/delay in
payment of proper court fees, as the loss so
caused to the exchequer has been taken
ample care under Section 47-A (4-A) by
requiring the person concern to pay simple
interest @ 1.5% per month on the deficient
stamp duty.

In the instant case, the petitioner is
one time petty purchaser of immovable
property and is not in business of real
estate. She is not a property dealer and is
not
regularly
purchasing
or
selling
immovable properties. Thus, imposition of
penalty upon her may not act as a deterrent
to her as she is not likely to enter into any
such transaction in future.

The authorities below have not
recorded any finding that the petitioner
has deliberately not set-forth the market
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
value of the property in the instrument
and
knowingly
under
valued
the
instrument to avoid payment of proper
stamp duty. Merely for the reason that the
stamp duty paid by her is found to be
deficient can not by itself be a ground for
imposing penalty, particularly, in the
absence of any finding that there was
intention to evade proper stamp duty.

Moreover, the power to impose
penalty of an amount not exceeding four
time the amount of the proper duty or the
deficiency portion thereof is dependent
upon the judicial discretion and can not
be exercised in an arbitrary fashion. The
authorities below have not assigned any
reason for imposing penalty equivalent to
the deficiency portion of the stamp duty.
Therefore it can not be said to have been
acted judicially.

In view of the above, the imposition
of penalty can not be sustained."

40. From the aforesaid judgments, it
clearly comes out that the sine qua non
for imposition of the penalty is a finding
to be recorded by the Collector based on
the relevant material that the purchaser
or the person liable to pay stamp duty
had concealed the relevant facts in
execution of the sale deed and had the
intention to evade payment of the stamp
duty.

41. In the instant case, a perusal of
the impugned order dated 02.01.2015
indicates
that
no
facts
have
been
concealed
by
the
petitioner
while
executing the sale deed. The fact of land
being situated adjacent to national
highway and a running petrol pump have
duly been disclosed in the sale deed.
Admittedly, the stamp duty has been
affixed/paid at the agricultural rate for
the said piece of land. In the entire order,
there is no finding by the Collector as to
how the petitioner concealed the relevant
facts in execution of the sale deed and
consequently in the absence of any such
finding the imposition of penalty could
not validly have been imposed and as
such
the
imposition
of
penalty
of
Rs.50,000/- through the order dated
02.01.2015 is liable to be set-aside and
accordingly is set-aside."

23. From a perusal of the impugned
order dated 15.04.2005 it clearly emerges
that the impugned order does not indicate
nor records any finding by the competent
authority
that
the
purchaser
had
concealed relevant facts in execution of
the sale deed and had the intention to
evade the payment of stamp duty. As such
on this ground alone the imposition of
penalty on the petitioner cannot be said to
be legally sustainable in the eyes of law
and as such the impugned order merits to
be set aside.

24. The aforesaid aspects of the
matter have also not been considered by
the appellate authority while dismissing
the appeal of the petitioner vide the
impugned order dated 26.02.2014.

25. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussions the petition deserves to be
allowed and is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 15.04.2005 and 26.02.14,
copies of which are annexures 1 and 2 to
the petition, are set aside.

26. The matter is remitted to the
competent authority for passing of a fresh
order in accordance with law after
hearing all the parties concerned within a
period of 6 months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.

27. Consequences to follow.
----------
11 All. Ritu Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
361
(2022) 11 ILRA 361
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7207 of 2022

Ritu Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ram Ashish Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 107 & 306 - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Sections
156(3), 161 & 482 - Inherent power - at
the stage of deciding the application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. mini trial is not permissible -
when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima
facie establish the offence.(Para -20,24 )

Suicide - Charge sheet, impugned cognizance ,
summoning order & entire proceedings -
quashing of - role of applicant No.1 (wife of
deceased) & applicant Nos.2, 3 & 4 (brothers &
maternal
uncle
of
applicant
No.1)
-
distinguishable - applicant No.1 in some illicit
relationship - perusal of suicide note and note
writings of deceased - no iota of evidence
against applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 - no explicit or
implicit role towards abetment - no offence
under Section 306 IPC disclosed. (Para-1 to
21)

HELD:-In the absence of any specific allegation
and material of definite nature or even prima
facie in the FIR, statements of witnesses
recorded during investigation, pointing out any
such circumstances showing any such act or
intention that applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 intended
to bring about the suicide of deceased, it would
be travesty of justice to ask applicants to face
the trial. Charge sheet, impugned cognizance
and summoning order and entire proceedings
quashed only against applicant No.2 ,3 & 4 and
rejected to the extent of applicant No.1. (Para25 to 28 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. partly allowed.
(E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Rajasthan &
anr.,Criminal Appeal No.1164 of 2021 (S.L.P.
(Crl.) No.4512 of 2019)

2. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Maha.
& ors., (2021) 2 SCC 427

3. Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs St. of Maha. &
anr., (2018) 7 SCC 433

4. St. of W.B. Vs Indrajit Kundu & ors., (2019)
10 SCC 188

5. S S Chheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr.,
2010 (12) SCC 190

6. Ramesh Kumar Vs St. of Chhattisgarh, (2001)
9 SCC 618

7. Ude Singh & Ors. Vs St. of Har. Crl. Appeal
No.233 of 2010

8. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Akhil Sharda & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022 with Criminal
Appeal No.841 of 2022

9. St. of Karn. Vs L. Muniswamy & ors.

10. M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & ors.
Vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque & anr.,

11. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & anr. Vs
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & ors.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been moved by applicants, namely, Ritu