# Parul Budhraja & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 580
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 3996 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Lakshmi Kant Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parul-budhraja-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52701
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A., Kabeer Tiwari

Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned FIR is a second FIR on
identical facts and allegations, lodged with
malafide intent after an inordinate delay of more
than five years from the original transaction

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226; The Indian Penal Code, 1860- 420,
467, 468, & 471- The two FIRs may refer
to a common background of financial
transactions between the parties, their
scope, subject matter, and period of
commission are manifestly distinct- Earlier
FIR concerns inducement and cheating in
respect of an investment and the present
one concerns fabrication and use of false
documents in judicial proceedings- The
offences
alleged
in
the
latter
are
independent
and
self-contained,
and
cannot be said to have been the subject
matter of the earlier investigation. (E-15)

Held- The present FIR discloses new and distinct
offences allegedly committed after registration
of the first case. The bar against a second FIR
operates only where both relate to the same
incident or transaction. In this case, the test of
sameness is not satisfied.
(Para 24, 25 & 26)

Case Law Cited
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
(2025) INSC 248; Anju Chaudhary v. State of
U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384; State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal (1992 )Supp (1) SCC 335; Babubhai
v. State of Gujarat and others (2010) 12 SCC
254; Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and
Others (2009) 1 SCC 441; Ram Lal Narang v.
State (Delhi Administration) ( 1979) 2 SCC 322;
10 All. Parul Budhraja & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India
(2020) 14 SCC 12; T. T. Antony Vs. State of
Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The
Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
FIRs may refer to a common background;
Scope,
subject
matter,
and
period
of
commission are manifestly distinct; Test of
sameness.

Case Arising From
F.I.R. dated 14.07.2024 registered as F.I.R.
bearing No. 0230 of 2024 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C. , Police Station Link Road, District
Ghaziabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Mohit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G. A., Kabeer
Tiwari

## Text

580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said motive, he is alleged to have killed the
deceased, though, there is not an iota of
evidence to prove the said motive,
however, the trial court by placing implicit
reliance upon the testimony of PW-1 and
PW-2 and relying upon the recovery, has
illegally recorded the finding of conviction
against the appellants, which, in our
opinion and in the backdrop of the
foregoing discussions, is wholly illegally
and is liable to be set aside as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts and the
appellants are liable to be acquitted by
extending benefit of doubt to them.

73.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussions, we are of the opinion that the
instant appeal is liable to be allowed and is
accordingly
allowed.
The
impugned
judgment and order dated 06.06.2019
passed by the trial court is set aside. The
appellant no.1- Sukh Lal Bunkar is already
on bail. He need not to surrender and his
sureties stands discharged. So far as the
appellant no.2- Pappu Sonkar is concerned,
he is detained in jail and as such, he be
liable to be released forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case subject to the
compliance of Section 437-A of CrPC to
the satisfaction of the trial court.

74. Let a copy of this judgment and
order be sent to the trial court alongwith
trial court record for information and
necessary compliance.
----------
 (2025) 10 ILRA 580
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3996 of 2025

Parul Budhraja & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohit Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Kabeer Tiwari

Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned FIR is a second FIR on
identical facts and allegations, lodged with
malafide intent after an inordinate delay of more
than five years from the original transaction

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226; The Indian Penal Code, 1860- 420,
467, 468, & 471- The two FIRs may refer
to a common background of financial
transactions between the parties, their
scope, subject matter, and period of
commission are manifestly distinct- Earlier
FIR concerns inducement and cheating in
respect of an investment and the present
one concerns fabrication and use of false
documents in judicial proceedings- The
offences
alleged
in
the
latter
are
independent
and
self-contained,
and
cannot be said to have been the subject
matter of the earlier investigation. (E-15)

Held- The present FIR discloses new and distinct
offences allegedly committed after registration
of the first case. The bar against a second FIR
operates only where both relate to the same
incident or transaction. In this case, the test of
sameness is not satisfied.
(Para 24, 25 & 26)

Case Law Cited
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
(2025) INSC 248; Anju Chaudhary v. State of
U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384; State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal (1992 )Supp (1) SCC 335; Babubhai
v. State of Gujarat and others (2010) 12 SCC
254; Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and
Others (2009) 1 SCC 441; Ram Lal Narang v.
State (Delhi Administration) ( 1979) 2 SCC 322;
10 All. Parul Budhraja & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India
(2020) 14 SCC 12; T. T. Antony Vs. State of
Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The
Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
FIRs may refer to a common background;
Scope,
subject
matter,
and
period
of
commission are manifestly distinct; Test of
sameness.

Case Arising From
F.I.R. dated 14.07.2024 registered as F.I.R.
bearing No. 0230 of 2024 for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C. , Police Station Link Road, District
Ghaziabad

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Mohit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G. A., Kabeer
Tiwari

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari
Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
instituted
under
Article
226
of the
Constitution of India by the petitioners
seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated
14.07.2024 registered as F.I.R. bearing No.
0230 of 2024 for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. ,
Police
Station
Link
Road,
District
Ghaziabad. The petitioners have further
prayed for stay of their arrest in connection
with the above said F.I.R. during the
pendency of the proceeding before this
Court.

Brief Facts Of The Case:-

2. The above said F.I.R. has been
lodged by the complainant Sri Rishabh
Agnihotri, gravamen of the allegations
made in the F.I.R. is that the accused
persons namely Yogesh Rana @ Yogi, Ved
Budh Raja, Sahil Kalra, Devashish Kotnala
and Praul Budhraja were allegedly running
an organized group or syndicate engaged in
cheating and forgery through on-line
business channels. It is alleged that the said
accused persons, acting in concert, induced
the
complainant's
brother
Shubham
Agnihotri to invest a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-
in their business venture by making false
representations and deceitful promises. The
transactions is stated to have taken place in
the year 2019 under the guise of a business
project relating to travel packages and
health products being operated under the
name and style of 'QNet'.

3. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that
after registration of an earlier case vide
F.I.R. bearing No. 38 of 2021 at the same
police station on the complaint of Shubham
Agnihotri, the present accused persons, in
order to shield themselves from prosecution
in
that
case,
fabricated
and
forged
documents including a 'Declaration' and
'Distributor Application Form' purportedly
in the names of Rishabh Agnihotri, Smt.
Shobha Agnihotri and Shubham Agnihotri.
These forged documents were allegedly
affixed with counterfeit signatures and a
fake notarial seal purporting to be that of
Sri Virendra Singh, Advocate and Notary
Public. The said forged documents were
then submitted during the investigation of
the earlier case with the intent to mislead
the investigating agency and to secure
relief by way of false exculpatory material.

4. Upon coming to know of such
forgery, legal notices dated 17.08.2023 and
30.09.2023 were issued to the said Notary.
In his written reply, it is stated that the
Notary categorically denied having attested
or signed any of the said documents, stating
that the signatures and seals appearing
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereon
were
forged
and
fabricated.
Thereafter,
the
informant
filed
an
application under Section 156(3) of the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
(hereinafter "CrPC") before the Court
concerned,
seeking
a
direction
for
registration of an FIR. Acting upon the said
application,
the
Court
directed
the
concerned police station to register the
case, in compliance whereof the present
FIR was registered.

5. Hence, the instant writ petition has
been filed.

Submissions:-

6. Sri Mohit Kumar Shukla, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the impugned FIR
is a second FIR on identical facts and
allegations, lodged with malafide intent
after an inordinate delay of more than five
years from the original transaction. It is
contended that the earlier FIR No. 38/2021,
lodged by Shubham Agnihotri at the same
police
station,
had
already
been
investigated, and no offence was found
against them.

7. It is their case that Shubham
Agnihotri, who was known to petitioner no.
1, Smt. Parul Budhraja, since the year 2014
when both met at Noida, voluntarily
invested in the business project of 'QNet'
after being fully apprised of the nature and
terms of the business. Subsequently, due to
monetary disputes arising out of friendly
loans of Rs 3,00,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/-,
the said Shubham Agnihotri allegedly
turned
vindictive
and
initiated
false
criminal proceedings when repayment was
sought.

8. It has further been stated that
petitioner no. 1 had, in turn, filed her own
complaints and civil recovery proceedings
against
Shubham
Agnihotri
in
the
competent courts at Delhi, including a
recovery suit. The petitioners have asserted
that the present FIR has been engineered by
Rishabh Agnihotri acting merely as a proxy
or front for his brother Shubham Agnihotri,
and that the allegations contained therein
are a repetition of the same set of facts
forming part of FIR No. 38/2021. It has
been further alleged that the impugned FIR
amounts to a clear abuse of the process of
law and has been lodged solely with the
intent to harass the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioners submitted that after
perusal of the charge sheet/final report and
the second F.I.R. reveals that both the FIRs
are registered on the same transaction,
same facts, same parties, same witnesses,
same cause of action and with the very
same
documents.
It
is
vehemently
submitted that there is violation of principle
as laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala .
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
filing of second F.I.R. on the basis of the
given facts and circumstances of the first
F.I.R. is unwarranted and violative of
fundamental rights under article 14, 20 and
21 of the Constitution of India.

10. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioners further relied upon the
ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of
India relying T. T. Antony (Supra) . The
relevant paragraph no. 28 of the said
judgment is quoted as under:-

"28. The fundamental basis on
which the jurisdiction of this Court has
been invoked under Article 32 is the filing
of multiple FIRs and complaints in various
10 All. Parul Budhraja & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
States arising from the same cause of
action. The cause of action was founded on
a programme which was telecast on R
Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and
criminal complaints were lodged against
the petitioner in the States of Maharashtra,
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana
and
Jharkhand
besides
the
Union
Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. The
law
concerning
multiple
criminal
proceedings on the same cause of action
has been analyzed in a judgment of this
Court in TT Antony v State of Kerala ("TT
Antony"). Speaking for a two judge Bench,
Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
interpreted the provisions of Section 154
and cognate provisions of the CrPC
including Section 173 and observed:

"20...under the scheme of the
provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157,
162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, only the
earliest or the first information in regard to
the commission of a cognizable offence
satisfies the requirements of Section 154
CrPC. Thus, there can be no second FIR
and consequently there can be no fresh
investigation on receipt of every subsequent
information in respect of the same
cognizable offence or the same occurrence
or incident giving rise to one or more
cognizable
offences.
On
receipt
of
information about a cognizable offence or
an incident giving rise to a cognizable
offence or offences and on entering the FIR
in the station house diary, the officer in
charge of a police station has to investigate
not merely the cognizable offence reported
in the FIR but also other connected
offences found to have been committed in
the course of the same transaction or the
same occurrence and file one or more
reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC."

The Court held that "there can be
no second FIR" where the information
concerns the same cognisable offence
alleged in the first FIR or the same
occurrence or incident which gives rise to
one or more cognisable offences. This is
due to the fact that the investigation covers
within its ambit not just the alleged
cognisable offence, but also any other
connected offences that may be found to
have been committed. This Court held that
once an FIR postulated by the provisions of
Section 154 has been recorded, any
information
received
after
the
commencement of investigation cannot
form the basis of a second FIR as doing so
would fail to comport with the scheme of
the CrPC. The court observed:

"18...All other information made
orally
or
in
writing
after
the
commencement of the investigation into the
cognizable offence disclosed from the facts
mentioned in the first information report
and entered in the station house diary by
the police officer or such other cognizable
offences as may come to his notice during
the investigation, will be statements falling
under Section 162 CrPC. No such
information/statement can properly be
treated as an FIR and entered in the station
house diary again, as it would in effect be a
second FIR and the same cannot be in
conformity withthe scheme of CrPC."

This Court adverted to the need
to strike a just balance between the
fundamental rights of citizens under
Articles 19 and 21 and the expansive power
of the police to investigate a cognisable
offence. Adverting to precedent, this Court
held:

"27...the sweeping power of
investigation does not warrant subjecting a
citizen each time to fresh investigation by
the police in respect of the same incident,
giving rise to one or more cognizable
offences,
consequent
upon
filing
of
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
successive FIRs whether before or after
filing the final report under Section 173(2)
CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the
purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC,
nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power
of investigation in a given case. In our view
a case of fresh investigation based on the
second or successive FIRs, not being a
counter-case, filed in connection with the
same or connected cognizable offence
alleged to have been committed in the
course of the same transaction and in
respect of which pursuant to the first FIR
either investigation is under way or final
report under Section 173(2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit
case for exercise of power under Section
482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Court held that barring
situations in which a counter-case is filed,
a fresh investigation or a second FIR on
the basis of the same or connected
cognisable offence would constitute an
"abuse
of
the
statutory
power
of
investigation" and may be a fit case for the
exercise of power either under Section 482
of the CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution."

11. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioners submitted that in view
of the above facts and circumstances, the
instant F.I.R. is nothing but gross misuse of
process of law and violation of principle
laid down by the Supreme Court as stated
above as well as contrary to the principle of
article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and deserves to be quashed.

12. Per contra, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kabeer
Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.4 opposed the writ petition
and submitted that the petitioners have
been rightly named in the impugned FIR,
which clearly discloses the commission of
cognizable offences under Sections 420,
467, 468, and 471 IPC. It is urged that the
present FIR arises from independent acts of
forgery and fabrication committed by the
petitioners after registration of FIR No.
38/2021 and therefore constitutes a fresh
cause of action.

13. It is further contended that the
forged
Declaration
and
Distributor
Application Form, bearing counterfeit
signatures and false attestation of Shri
Virendra Singh, Notary Public were used
by the petitioners during the proceedings of
the earlier case to mislead the authorities,
thereby attracting separate penal liabilities.
The Notary, in his written reply, has
categorically
denied
attesting
the
documents,
which,
according
to
the
respondents, substantiates the allegations. It
is also submitted that the FIR was
registered pursuant to judicial directions
under Section 156(3) CrPC, only after the
complainant's repeated representations to
the police went unheeded. The plea of the
petitioners that the impugned FIR amounts
to a second FIR is misconceived, as the two
FIRs relate to distinct transactions and
different
offences
where
the
earlier
concerning cheating, and the present one
relating to subsequent acts of forgery and
use of fabricated documents. Learned
Senior counsel for strengthening his
argument has relied upon the ratio of
judgements passed by the Supreme Court
in the cases of Ram Lal Narang v. State
(Delhi Administration), T. T. Antony v.
State of Kerala and Others (Supra),
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab
10 All. Parul Budhraja & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
and Others, Babubhai v. State of
Gujarat and others.

14. Learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.4 submitted that
in view of the aforesaid submissions, the
petitioners have failed to make out any case
on merit for invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction under article 226 of the
constitution of India by this court to allow
the prayer as made in the instant petition.
The instant writ petition is devoid of merit
and is to be dismissed.

Analysis and conclusion:-

15. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record including the judicial precedents
relied.

16. The law relating to the scope of
interference by this Court in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, particularly in
matters seeking quashing of an FIR, is well
settled. The power of quashing an FIR or
criminal proceeding must be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and only in
rare cases where the complaint or FIR does
not disclose any cognizable offence or
where continuation of the investigation
would amount to an abuse of process of
law.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal as well as
in a catena of judgments, laid down the
broad parameters under which quashing of
an FIR may be justified. It has been held
that the power under Article 226 or Section
482 CrPC is to be invoked only where (i)
the
allegations
do
not
disclose
the
commission of any offence, (ii) the
allegations
are
absurd
or
inherently
improbable, (iii) the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fides, or (iv)
the complaint is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive. The Hon'ble Court,
however, cautioned that at the stage of
investigation, the High Court should not
embark
upon
an
inquiry
into
the
truthfulness of the allegations.

18. Applying the aforesaid principles,
the primary issue for consideration in the
present case is whether the registration of
FIR No. 230/2024 amounts to a "second
FIR" in respect of the same set of facts and
transactions as FIR No. 38/2021, thereby
attracting the bar laid down in T.T. Antony
(Supra).

19. In T.T. Antony (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
registration of a second or successive FIR,
relating to the same incident or transaction
in respect of which an earlier FIR has
already been registered and investigated, is
impermissible in law. The Hon'ble Court
observed that fresh investigation based on a
second FIR would amount to an abuse of
statutory power and violate Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.

20.
The
said
principle
has
subsequently been explained and qualified
by several later decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court,
notably
in
Anju
Chaudhary v. State of U.P. The consistent
position that emerges from the authorities
is
that
the
test
to
determine
the
maintainability of a subsequent FIR is the
'test of sameness', namely, whether both
FIRs relate to the same incident or are in
respect of the same occurrence or form part
of the same transaction. If the answer is in
the affirmative, the second FIR would not
be maintainable; however, if the allegations
in the subsequent FIR discloses a distinct
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occurrence, separate in time, place, or
nature of offence, or if they reveal new
facts or a larger conspiracy, a second FIR is
legally permissible.

21. In Anju Chaudhary (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, after harmonizing
the earlier authorities, held that while there
cannot be two FIRs for the same incident, a
subsequent FIR can be registered if it
relates to a different incident, discloses a
distinct
offence,
or
reveals
a
new
dimension not covered by the earlier FIR.

22. It is made out by this Court that
the purpose of registration of an FIR is to
set the criminal law in motion; thus, if fresh
facts
disclose
a
separate
cognizable
offence, it cannot be said that a second FIR
is barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
most recently reaffirmed and clarified these
principles in State of Rajasthan v.
Surendra Singh Rathore, holding that
while T.T. Antony (Supra) prohibits a
second FIR in respect of the same
transaction, it does not preclude registration
of a subsequent FIR based on a different
incident or discovery of a larger conspiracy
or fresh facts. The "rule of sameness" must
be applied pragmatically, and if the scope
and object of the subsequent FIR are
distinct from the earlier one, the bar against
a second FIR does not operate.

23. Examining the factual context of
the present case in light of the above legal
position, it is evident that FIR No. 38/2021,
lodged by Shubham Agnihotri, pertained to
the alleged inducement and deception by
the
petitioners
in
persuading
the
complainant's brother to invest money in a
business scheme run under the banner of
QNet. The gravamen of that case was
cheating and criminal breach of trust
relating to the investment transaction of the
year 2019. The investigation in that FIR
focused
on
the
financial
dealings,
representations made, and loss allegedly
suffered by Shubham Agnihotri.

24. The present FIR No. 230/2024, on
the other hand, is founded on subsequent
and
distinct
allegations
of
forgery,
fabrication, and use of forged documents
purportedly bearing fake signatures of
Rishabh Agnihotri, Smt. Shobha Agnihotri,
and Shubham Agnihotri, as well as a
counterfeit notarial seal of Shri Virendra
Singh, Advocate and Notary Public. The
primary accusation here is that after
registration
of
the
earlier
FIR,
the
petitioners
forged
and
fabricated
documents and used them during judicial
and investigative proceedings to mislead
authorities and to secure undue advantage.
The alleged acts of forgery and fabrication
are stated to have occurred between
20.07.2019
and
30.06.2024,
i.e.,
subsequent to the initial inducement
forming part of FIR No. 38/2021.

25. Therefore, while the two FIRs may
refer to a common background of financial
transactions between the parties, their
scope, subject matter, and period of
commission are manifestly distinct. The
earlier FIR concerns inducement and
cheating in respect of an investment and the
present one concerns fabrication and use of
false documents in judicial proceedings.
The offences alleged in the latter, under
Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC, are
independent and self-contained, and cannot
be said to have been the subject matter of
the earlier investigation.

26. The contention of the petitioners
that the present FIR is a "second FIR"
barred is, therefore, untenable. The present
FIR discloses new and distinct offences
10 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Devi
587
allegedly committed after registration of
the first case. The bar against a second FIR
operates only where both relate to the same
incident or transaction. In this case, the test
of sameness is not satisfied. Moreover, the
present FIR was registered pursuant to the
order of the learned Magistrate under
Section 156(3) CrPC after considering the
material placed before him.

27. At this preliminary stage of
investigation, this Court is not inclined to
embark upon a detailed appreciation of
facts or evidence. The veracity of the
allegations of forgery, fabrication, and use
of false notarial seals is a matter for
investigation and, if warranted, trial.

28. Consequently, this Court finds no
ground to exercise its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction to quash the FIR and for the
reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, stands disposed of.

29. The investigation shall continue in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observation made here-in-above.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 587
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1880 of 2025

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sangeeta Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amit Singh
Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether in the face of the
claimant's
evidence
demonstrating
the
deceased's
regular
EMI
payments
and
corresponding lifestyle indicators, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in
assessing the deceased's monthly income at Rs.
25,250/-
despite
the
absence
of
formal
documentary
proof,
and
consequently
determining compensation on that basis or
whether such assessment was perverse or
legally
unsustainable
so
as
to
warrant
interference by High Court in appeal u/s 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220 - A -
The case arises from a motor accident that
occurred on 08.01.2023 at about 5:00
P.M.,
when
the
deceased
aged
approximately 36 years, was travelling in
Loader from Kanpur to his residence and
the vehicle was struck from behind by the
offending D.C.M. allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner, causing the loader
to overturn and resulting in grievous
injuries to deceased who succumbed
shortly thereafter while being shifted from
the Government Hospital, Shivli to Halet
Hospital, Kanpur Nagar - The deceased,
who was the owner of the loader and was
paying a regular monthly EMI of Rs.
18,250/- for its purchase, was found by
the Tribunal to have been earning at least
Rs. 25,250/- per month, keeping in view
his financial obligations and the necessity
of supporting a family of five dependents -
Applying
a
deduction
of
one-fourth
towards
personal
expenses,
awarding
40%
future
prospects,
applying
the
multiplier 15, and granting statutory
amounts towards loss of estate, funeral
expenses, and consortium, the Tribunal
awarded
Rs.
48,56,250/-
with
7.5%
interest,
fastening
liability
upon
the
insurer, which led the Insurance Company
to file the instant appeal questioning the
income
assessment
and
quantum
of
compensation.