# Smt. Vinita Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 13634 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vinita-mehrotra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51545
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B - Anticipatory Bail -
Property Dispute - Alleged Fraudulent Sale
Deeds - Civil and Criminal Proceedings - The
applicant,
Smt.
Vinita
Mehrotra,
sought
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 894 of 2022
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B
IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor,
for allegedly executing ten sale deeds of a
disputed property, 'Dharm Bhawan,' without
valid title. The informant, her brother Rakesh
Sharma, claimed the property was his through a
1974 partition decree and a 2012 Will, alleging
the applicant colluded with land mafias to
fraudulently sell parts of it. The applicant
argued she believed the property was her
inheritance, had initiated civil suits for partition
and cancellation of the 1974 decree and 2012
Will, and had no dishonest intent. Held: The
court, relying on Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar
((2009) 8 SCC 751), Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St.
of Karnataka ((2021) SCC OnLine SC 976), Hira
Lal Vs St. of U.P. ((2009) 11 SCC 89), Ram Biraji
Devi Vs Umesh Kumar Singh ((2006) 6 SCC
669), and Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1), granted anticipatory
bail. The court found the dispute primarily civil,
with pending suits, and noted the applicant's
bona fide belief in her property rights, her lack
of criminal antecedents, and her status as a 74year-old woman. The court distinguished her
case from co-accused with criminal records and
emphasized that civil and criminal proceedings
could coexist, as per Pratibha Vs Rameshwari
Devi ((2007) 12 SCC 369), Mahesh Chaudhary
Vs St. of Rajasthan ((2009) 4 SCC 439), and
Priti Saraf Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) ((2021) 16 SCC
142).
Case Law Cited:

## Text

1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ethical conduct. By instilling these values
in
future
generations
and
holding
accountable those who seek to subvert
them, we can uphold the dignity and
aspirations of all individuals and ensure the
integrity of our institutions and society as a
whole.

16. Upon careful consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case, this
court is of the opinion that releasing the
applicant on bail at this juncture would not
be in the interest of justice. The gravity of
the offenses, the likelihood of the applicant
tampering with evidence or influencing
witnesses, and the potential risk of reoffending militate against granting bail.

17. Therefore, the bail application
filed
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
Chandrashekhar
Prasad,
is
hereby
denied/rejected.

18. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the present bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.

19. The trial court is directed to
expedite the proceedings in accordance
with law.

20. Order passed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1206
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
13634 of 2023
(Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.)

Smt. Vinita Mehrotra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Amit Daga

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 & 120-B - Anticipatory Bail -
Property Dispute - Alleged Fraudulent Sale
Deeds - Civil and Criminal Proceedings - The
applicant,
Smt.
Vinita
Mehrotra,
sought
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 894 of 2022
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B
IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor,
for allegedly executing ten sale deeds of a
disputed property, 'Dharm Bhawan,' without
valid title. The informant, her brother Rakesh
Sharma, claimed the property was his through a
1974 partition decree and a 2012 Will, alleging
the applicant colluded with land mafias to
fraudulently sell parts of it. The applicant
argued she believed the property was her
inheritance, had initiated civil suits for partition
and cancellation of the 1974 decree and 2012
Will, and had no dishonest intent. Held: The
court, relying on Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar
((2009) 8 SCC 751), Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St.
of Karnataka ((2021) SCC OnLine SC 976), Hira
Lal Vs St. of U.P. ((2009) 11 SCC 89), Ram Biraji
Devi Vs Umesh Kumar Singh ((2006) 6 SCC
669), and Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) ((2020) 5 SCC 1), granted anticipatory
bail. The court found the dispute primarily civil,
with pending suits, and noted the applicant's
bona fide belief in her property rights, her lack
of criminal antecedents, and her status as a 74year-old woman. The court distinguished her
case from co-accused with criminal records and
emphasized that civil and criminal proceedings
could coexist, as per Pratibha Vs Rameshwari
Devi ((2007) 12 SCC 369), Mahesh Chaudhary
Vs St. of Rajasthan ((2009) 4 SCC 439), and
Priti Saraf Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) ((2021) 16 SCC
142).
Case Law Cited:
1. Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC
751

2. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2021)
SCC
OnLine
SC
976
3 All. Smt. Vinita Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1207
3. Hira Lal Vs St. of U.P., (2009) 11 SCC 89

4. Ram Biraji Devi Vs Umesh Kumar Singh,
(2006) 6 SCC 669

5. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi),
(2020) 5 SCC 1

6. Pratibha Vs Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC
369

7. Mahesh Chaudhary Vs St. of Rajasthan,
(2009) 4 SCC 439

8. Priti Saraf Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2021) 16
SCC 142

9. CBI Vs Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

10. Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs Rajesh
Agarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit
Daga, learned counsel for the informant
and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for
the State as well as perused the material
placed on record.

3. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.894 of 2022
registered under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station-
Kotwali City, District Bijnor with a prayer
to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the
informant Rakesh Sharma that he and his
wife have a property in Civil Lines, Bijnor
which has residence, shops and open land
surrounded by boundary wall which is
being used by them for the last 50 years.
The said property was inherited by the
informant after a family partition in the
year 1974 after an order was taken from the
Court.
The
two
persons
namely,
Mohammed Talib and Shankar Lal, are
land mafias of the area and have garnered
huge black money out of it. They want to
illegally grab his property. The informant
had sold a certain part of the said property
on 14.11.2022. It is learnt that the said land
mafias have got executed ten sale deeds of
certain parts of the land on 25.11.2022 in
the names of their siblings in collusion with
Vinita Mehrotra w/o Shri PK Mehrotra.
The land grabber had got the said sale
deeds executed, despite knowing the fact
that Smt. Vinita Mehrotra (applicant) does
not have any title to the said land.

5. It is further stated in the FIR that
the
informant
had
contested
several
petitions up to the Supreme Court for
getting certain shops vacated by filing
petitions under the Rent Control Act. The
said sale deed have been executed for a
consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000,/- although
the real value in the open market is much
more than the amount shown in the sale
deeds.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

(Arguments on behalf of applicant)

6. The instant dispute relates to the
property under the name of 'Dharm
Bhawan' having an approximate area of
2400 square yards situated in the city of
Bijnor, U.P.

7. The original owner of the said
property was Sahdev Sharma whose wife
was Smt. Kusum Rani Sharma and the
couple had three siblings, namely, Vinita
Mehrotra (applicant), Rakesh Sharma and
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sangeeta Narang. The said Sahdev Sharma,
father
of
the
applicant,
expired
on
20.06.2012 and thereafter his wife Kusum
Rani Sharma expired on 20.06.2012. It is
placed on record that the informant Rakesh
Sharma is a practising advocate at the
District Court, Bijnor and so was his father
Sahdev
Sharma
and
was
even
a
Government Counsel (ADGC) at the
District Court, Bijnor.

8. The informant is stated to have
filed a collusive suit bearing O.S. No.28 of
1974 before the Civil Judge, Bijnor for
partition and permanent injunction under
the name of his mother and his father
Sahdev Sharma was made a defendant in it
during the life time of Dharmveer Sharma
(father of Sahdev Sharma, who died on
1.1.1975). In the said original suit, a
compromise was filed by the parties on
15.04.1974 and the same was decided on
the basis of the said compromise the same
day i.e. 15.04.1974 itself and a decree was
passed.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the
applicant- Vinita Mehrotra, who was
already married off in the year 1967, was
not a party in the said original suit, as such
had no inkling of the said collusive suit and
decree obtained by the informant. It is also
stated that just 18 days before the death of
Smt. Kusum Rani Sharma (mother of the
applicant and the informant), a forged Will
deed is stated to have been prepared in
favour of first informant on 02.06.2012,
which has not been signed by her. The
deceased is stated to be 86 years old on
2.6.2012.

10. The instant dispute arose when the
applicant sent a legal notice to the first
informant for partition of the property in
question and getting her one third share of
the said property on 23.09.2022 and the
applicant was forced to file a civil suit as
O.S. No.760 of 2022 (Smt. Vinita Mehrotra
vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others) on
3.10.2022 before the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Bijnor for partition of the
property in question between the legal heirs
of deceased Sahdev Sharma. A copy of the
said civil suit has been annexed as
Annexure No.4 to the anticipatory bail
application.

11. The first informant filed an
application Under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC on 25.11.2022 in the said original suit
and only then the applicant came to know
of
the
said
collusive
decree
dated
15.04.1974. A copy of the said application
has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the
anticipatory bail application. Subsequent to
it, the applicant is stated to have filed O.S.
No.967 of 2022 on 18.12.2022 for
cancellation of the judgment and decree
dated 15.04.1974, obtained ex-parte. The
said suit is still pending and the matter is
being contested before the Civil Court.

12. The applicant had also filed O.S.
No.960 of 2022 before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Bijnor for cancellation
of the fake Will deed dated 2.6.2012
purported to have been executed by Late
Smt. Kusum Rani Sharma, before her death
on 20.06.2012. The applicant had even
filed information in the local newspaper
'Chingari' on 3.10.2022 indicating that she
holds one third share in the said property.

13. The applicant had executed ten
sale deeds of the parts of the said property
measuring
647
square
yards
for
a
consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. The
instant FIR has been instituted subsequent
to the said sale deed on 6.12.2022. The
applicant was granted arrest stay by this
3 All. Smt. Vinita Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1209
Court till the conclusion investigation vide
order dated 1.2.2023 passed in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.1383 of 2023.

14. The informant had even forged an
unregistered Will deed of his father dated
10.02.1979 and had even forged the
signatures of the applicant on it. The
Investigating Officer has not acted fairly
and has submitted the final report (chargesheet) mechanically in collusion with the
informant, who is an advocate, and the
cognizance order dated 29.03.2023 is
without application of mind.

15. The application filed Under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was allowed by
the Learned Civil Judge ex-parte on
8.2.2023 without hearing the applicant that
too on the date when there was a resolution
of the Bar to abstain from work on account
of condolence of the death of an advocate.
The applicant has filed Appeal No.33 of
2023 against the said order dated 9.1.2023
of the Civil Judge before the District Judge,
Bijnor, which is still pending.

16. Reliance has been placed on
paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in Mohammad
Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Another1, which reads-as-under:

"14. An analysis of Section 464
of the Penal Code shows that it divides
false documents into three categories:

1. The first is where a person
dishonestly or fraudulently makes or
executes a document with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by some
other person, or by the authority of some
other person, by whom or by whose
authority he knows it was not made or
executed.

2. The second is where a person
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation
or otherwise, alters a document in any
material part, without lawful authority,
after it has been made or executed by either
himself or any other person.

3. The third is where a person
dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
person to sign, execute or alter a document
knowing that such person could not by
reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b)
intoxication; or (c) deception practised
upon him, know the contents of the
document or the nature of the alteration.

In short, a person is said to have
made a "false document", if (i) he made or
executed a document claiming to be
someone else or authorised by someone
else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a
document; or (iii) he obtained a document
by practising deception, or from a person
not in control of his senses."

17. The case of the applicant is
squarely covered by the judgment of Mohd.
Ibrahim (supra), whereby the applicant has
not dishonestly or fraudulently executed the
sale deed and has not altered any document
or any material part in it.

18. Reliance has also been placed on
paragraph Nos.35 and 37 of the judgment
of Supreme Court passed in Mitesh Kumar
J. Sha vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others2, which reads-as-under:

 "35. The dispute between the
parties, could at best be termed as one
involving a mere breach of contract. Now,
whether and what, is the difference between
a mere breach of contract and an offence of
cheating has been discussed in the ensuing
paragraphs.

37. Applying this dictum to the
instant factual matrix where the key
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ingredient of having a dishonest or
fraudulent intent under Sections 405, 419
and 420 is not made out, the case at hand,
in our considered opinion is a suitable case
necessitating intervention of this Court."

19. Reliance has also been placed on
paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment
of Supreme Court passed in Hira Lal and
Other vs. State of U.P. And Others3,
which reads-as-under:

 "12.
The
parameters
of
interference with a criminal proceeding by
the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
are well known. One of the grounds on
which such interference is permissible is
that the allegations contained in the
complaint petition even if given face value
and taken to be correct in their entirety,
commission of an offence is not disclosed.
The High Court may also interfere where
the action on the part of the complainant is
mala fide.

13. The dispute between the
parties is essentially civil in nature. The
will in question is a registered will.
Whether it is surrounded by suspicious
circumstances or not is a matter which may
appropriately fall for determination in a
testamentary proceeding. Prima facie, a
civil court has found the said will to be
genuine. A complaint petition filed by the
third respondent has been rejected. A
revision application filed thereagainst has
also been dismissed."

20. Reliance has also been placed on
paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment
of Supreme Court passed in Ram Biraji
Devi & Another vs. Umesh Kumar Singh
& Another4, which reads-as-under:

"10. The learned Magistrate in
his order has categorically stated that the
perusal of the complaint would make it
clear that there was a dispute in respect of
sale and purchase of land between the
parties. In our view even if the allegations
made in the complaint are accepted to be
true and correct, the appellants cannot be
said to have committed any offence of
cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Neither can any guilty intention be
attributed to them nor can there possibly be
any intention on their part to deceive the
complainant. No criminal case is made out
by the complainant against the appellants
in his complaint and in the statements of
the complainant and his witnesses recorded
by the Magistrate before taking of the
cognizance of the alleged offences. The
averments of the complaint and the
statements of the complainant and his
witnesses recorded by the Magistrate
would amount to civil liability inter se the
parties and no criminal liability can be
attributed to the appellants on the basis of
the material on record. In Trisuns
Chemical Industry case [(1999) 8 SCC 686
: 2000 SCC (Cri) 47] relied upon by the
complainant, this Court held as under:
(SCC p. 687)

"Quashing of FIR or a complaint
in exercise of the inherent powers of the
High Court should be limited to very
extreme exceptions. Merely because an act
has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude
it of its criminal outfit. The provision
incorporated in the agreement for referring
the disputes to arbitration is not an
effective
substitute
for
a
criminal
prosecution when the disputed act is an
offence. Arbitration is a remedy for
affording reliefs to the party affected by
breach of the agreement but the arbitrator
cannot conduct a trial of any act which
amounted to an offence albeit the same act
may be connected with the discharge of any
function under the agreement. Hence, those
3 All. Smt. Vinita Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1211
are not good reasons for the High Court to
axe down the complaint at the threshold
itself. The investigating agency should have
had the freedom to go into the whole gamut
of the allegations and to reach a conclusion
of
its
own.
Pre-emption
of
such
investigation would be justified only in very
extreme cases."

11.
There
cannot
be
any
disagreement
to
the
well-settled
proposition of law that the High Court
should exercise its inherent powers in
extreme exceptions to quash an FIR or a
complaint. The ratio as laid down in
Trisuns Chemical Industry case [(1999) 8
SCC 686 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 47] is of no help
and assistance to the complainant in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
The complaint instituted does not disclose
that an offence under Section 420 is made
out. Cognizance taken by the Magistrate
thereon against the appellants for offences
under Sections 406/419/420 and 120-B IPC
is clearly an abuse of the process of court
and interference by this Court is expedient
in the interest of justice. This is a case of
extreme exception where the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent
jurisdiction and power to set aside the
unwarranted and unjustified order of the
Magistrate impugned before it by the
appellants."

21. The instant case is of civil in
nature and the dispute is between the
informant and the applicant regarding the
share in the land. The said partition deed
dated 15.4.1974 is under challenge before
the Civil Court, Bijnor.

22. The bona-fide purchasers were
granted bail by this Court vide order dated
19.7.2023
passed
in
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.5334
of 2023. This Court was pleased to dismiss
the anticipatory bail application of coaccused persons, namely, Shankar Lal and
Mohd. Talib, vide order dated 19.07.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.5822 of 2023, but the
bail of co-accused Shankar Lal has been
allowed by the Supreme Court while that of
the co-accused person Mohd. Talib has
been rejected on account of his criminal
antecedents.

23. The case of the applicant is at a
different footing as she is a bona-fide seller
of the property she inherited from her
father. The applicant has sold the property
much less than her share of 800 square
yards. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents to her credit and being a lady
of 74 years of age, is entitled for
anticipatory bail. The applicant undertakes
that she has co-operated in the investigation
and is ready to do so in trial also failing
which the State can move appropriate
application for cancellation of anticipatory
bail.
(Arguments on behalf of informant/State)

24. The dispute is regarding the
residential land/house known as 'Dharm
Bhawan' having an area of 2400 square
yards located in front of Gayatri Nursing
Home, Bijnor. The informant and his
parents had got the marriage of the
applicant solemnized in the year 1967 to a
well off family and had spent money
beyond their capacity, which was more
than her share in the property. The husband
of the applicant is a retired IAS officer. The
order and decree dated 15.4.1974 is final
and has not been set-aside by any Court of
Law and the said act was bona-fide act of
the parents of the applicant. As a result of
the said decree, the deceased parents and
the applicant were accorded one third share
of the said property. The deceased Sahdev
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sharma had executed an unregistered Will
deed in favour of the informant. The copy
of the said Will deed has been appended as
Annexure No.CA-2 to the counter affidavit
filed with the anticipatory bail application.

25. After the death of the father of the
informant Sahdev Sharma on 31.01.1980,
the informant became the owner of two
third share of the property in dispute. The
informant, being the allottee of one super
deluxe flat being House No.602, located at
Nanda
Apartment,
Kaushambi
under
Apartment Yojna Series 650, gifted the said
flat alongwith the amount of the remaining
instalments proposed to be deposited in
Ghaziabad Development Authority to the
applicant Vinita Mehrotra. The applicant
had even acknowledged the factum of
partition of the ancestral property between
her parents and brother Rakesh Sharma in
the year 1974 in it. The copy of the said
receipt dated 10.03.1993 has been annexed
as Annexure No.CA-3 to the counter
affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail
application.

26. The mother of the informant Smt.
Kusum Rani Sharma had executed a
registered Will in favour of the informant
where she gave her entire share in property
in dispute to the informant on 2.6.2012.
The copy of the registered Will has been
annexed as Annexure No.CA-5 to the
counter affidavit filed with the anticipatory
bail application. The mother of the
informant and the applicant, Smt. Kusum
Rani Sharma, expired on 20.06.2012, as
such the informant became the sole title
holder of the property in dispute. The
applicant has no share in the said property
and has illegally sold the said land. The
applicant is a greedy lady and under ill
advice, in order to extort money from the
informant and his family members, had
filed civil suit and the notice in the local
newspaper.

27. The informant had executed two
sale deeds on 17.10.2022 subsequent to the
said civil suit instituted by the applicant of
the land measuring 323.66 square meters.
The applicant has executed the said sale
deeds subsequent to the sale deed executed
by the informant on 23.11.2022 and
25.11.2022. The applicant has executed the
said ten sale deeds as a stress sale much
below the market price. Even the applicant
has executed a power of attorney in favour
of land mafias namely, Mohd. Talib and
Shankar Lal, on 03.12.2022 to take care of
the civil proceedings pending as O.S.
No.760 of 2022 subsequent to the FIR
instituted by the informant on 6.12.2022.
The factum of other civil suits pending
between the parties is not disputed by the
informant. The final report (charge-sheet)
has been submitted against the applicant
after
thorough
investigation
by
the
Investigating Officer and cognizance was
taken by the Magistrate concerned on
29.03.2023.

28. The co-accused person Shankar
Lal has been granted anticipatory bail by
the Supreme Court on 09.11.2023 and that
of Mohd. Talib has been rejected vide order
dated 14.12.2023 on account of his
criminal antecedents.

29. The bail application of the coaccused person was allowed by this Court
vide order dated 19.7.2023 passed in
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.5334 of
2023, whereby the case of the applicant and
other co-accused persons, namely, Mohd.
Talib and Shankar Lal, was distinguished.
The relevant paragraph of the said order is
being reproduced below:
3 All. Smt. Vinita Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1213

"10. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as the judgements referred above by
them and also the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC OnLine SC 98, the applicants are
entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in
this case. However, it is made clear that the
case of the applicants is at a different
footing to the case of co-accused Vineeta
Mehrotra, Mohd. Talib and Shanker Lal."

30. As such, the applicant is also not
entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground
of parity with the co-accused persons
whose anticipatory bail application has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated
19.7.2023
passed
in
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438
Cr.P.C. No.5822 of 2023.

31. Reliance has been placed on
paragraph Nos.9 to 16 of the judgment of
this Court dated 16.1.2024 passed in
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.11379 of
2023, which reads as under:

"9.
After
mentioning
the
aforesaid categories, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court added a note of caution to the effect
that: -
 "the
power
of
quashing
a
criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the
court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that
the extraordinary or inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or
caprice."

10. In CBI versus Aryan Singh,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"10. From the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that the High Court has
dealt with the proceedings before it, as if,
the High Court was conducting a mini trial
and/or the High Court was considering the
applications against the judgment and
order passed by the learned Trial Court on
conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge
and/or
quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is
not required to conduct the mini trial. The
High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating
agency
is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges
are required to be proved during the trial
on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating
agency.
Therefore, the High Court has materially
erred in going in detail in the allegations
and the material collected during the
course of the investigation against the
accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is
required
to
consider
"whether
any
sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not".

11. Therefore, the submission of
the learned Counsel for the applicant that
the allegations leveled in the FIR are false,
cannot be examined by this Court while
deciding an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. So far as the next submission
of the earned Counsel for the applicant,
that the dispute between the parties is
purely civil in nature, the allegations in the
FIR are that the applicant has committed
the offences of criminal breach of trust and
cheating against the informant.

13. In Pratibha v. Rameshwari
Devi, (2007) 12 SCC 369, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that "it is well settled
that criminal and civil proceedings are
separate and independent and the pendency
of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an
end a criminal proceeding even if they
arise out of the same set of facts."

14. In Mahesh Chaudhary v.
State of Rajasthan, (2009) 4 SCC 439, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

11. The principle providing for
exercise of the power by a High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding
is well known. The Court shall ordinarily
exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in
the event the allegations contained in the
FIR or the complaint petition even if on
face value are taken to be correct in their
entirety, does not disclose commission of
an offence.

12. It is also well settled that save
and
except
in
very
exceptional
circumstances, the Court would not look to
any document relied upon by the accused in
support
of
his
defence.
Although
allegations contained in the complaint
petition may disclose a civil dispute, the
same by itself may not be a ground to hold
that the criminal proceedings should not be
allowed to continue. For the purpose of
exercising its jurisdiction, the superior
courts are also required to consider as to
whether the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint petition fulfil the ingredients
of the offences alleged against the accused.
(Emphasis supplied)

15. In Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2021) 16 SCC 142, it was held
that: -

31. In the instant case, on a
careful
reading
of
the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it
cannot be said that the complaint does not
disclose the commission of an offence. The
ingredients of the offences under Sections
406 and 420IPC cannot be said to be
absent on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like
to add that whether the allegations in the
complaint are otherwise correct or not, has
to be decided on the basis of the evidence
to be led during the course of trial. Simply
because there is a remedy provided for
breach of contract or arbitral proceedings
initiated at the instance of the appellants,
that does not by itself clothe the court to
come to a conclusion that civil remedy is
the only remedy, and the initiation of
criminal proceedings, in any manner, will
be an abuse of the process of the court for
exercising inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482CrPC for quashing
such proceedings."

16. As besides the civil dispute
between the parties, the allegations in the
FIR make out commission of cognizable
offences of criminal breach of trust and
cheating
by
the
applicant,
which
allegations have been established by the
material collected during investigation and,
accordingly, a charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicant, I am of the
considered view that as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pratibha, Mahesh Chaudhary and Priti
Saraf (Supra), the charge-sheet and the
criminal proceedings against the applicant
cannot be quashed merely because the
allegations may also disclose a civil
dispute between the parties."
3 All. Smt. Vinita Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1215

32. If there is civil litigation pending
between the parties, there is no bar in
continuing with the criminal prosecution as
has been settled in the judgment of Keshav
(supra).

33. Learned A.G.A. has reiterated the
arguments tendered at bar by learned
counsel for the informant and has also
opposed the anticipatory bail application of
the applicant, but has not disputed the facts
that
the
applicant
has
no
criminal
antecedents to her credit and also the
pendency of civil suits between the parties.

CONCLUSION:

34. The important factor to be taken
into consideration is that when a person
executes a document conveying a property
describing it as 'his' or 'hers', there are two
possibilities. The first is that he/she, as a
bona-fide act, believes that the property
actually belongs to him/her. The second is
that
he/she
may
be
dishonestly
or
fraudulently claiming it to be his/her eventhough he/she knows that it is not his/her
property.

35. As propounded in Mohd.
Ibrahim (supra), to fall under the first
category of false documents, it is not
sufficient that a document has to be made
or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. In
the case herein, the applicant has executed
the sale deed conveying it to be her's and
has not misrepresented anyone. It is also
admitted fact that prior to the institution of
the FIR and even the said sale deeds, there
were civil suits pending before the Civil
Court, Bijnor. Thus, the exception can be
drawn in favour of the applicant being a
lady of 74 years of age. It is to be noted at
the time of arguments in the bail
application of co-accused, the facts relating
to the applicant were not argued or brought
forward as she was not an applicant there.

36. The argument of the counsel for
the informant claiming parity of rejection
of bail of co-accused does not hold good as
it is settled law of the Court that parity can
be claimed for grant of bail and not for its
rejection. It is also to be taken into account
that one of the very same accused person
Shankar
Lal
has
been
enlarged
on
anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court vide
its' order dated 09.11.2023. The case of the
applicant is at a better footing to Shankar
Lal as she has no criminal antecedents.

37. It is very unfortunate when
familial relationships are strained by greed.
Open communication and understanding
can be key to resolving such issues. Sorry
to see that rapacity can create conflicts and
damage blood relationships. The FIR and
the litigations between the parties is a
fallout of depleting family relations due to
avidity.
The
litigation
can
further
complicate the already depleting family
dynamics.

38. On due consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant as well as learned A.G.A., taking
into consideration the judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in Mohd. Ibrahim
(supra) and the fact that the bail
application of the co-accused person
Shankar Lal has been allowed by the
Supreme Court vide its' order dated
9.11.2023 coupled with the fact that the
applicant has no criminal antecedents to her
credit, and considering the nature of
accusations, the applicant is liable to be
enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
"Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future
contingencies regarding the anticipatory
bail being granted to applicant shall also be
taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment
of the Apex Court.

39. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant is allowed. Let the accusedapplicant- Smt. Vinita Mehrotra be
released forthwith in the aforesaid case
crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicant shall make
herself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
her from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not
leave India without the previous permission
of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall
appear before the trial court on each date
fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any
of the above conditions the court concerned
shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

40. It is made clear that observations
made hereinabove are exclusively for
deciding the instant anticipatory bail
application and shall not affect the trial.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1216
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Crl. Misc.IInd Bail Application No. 26925 of 2023

Yogendra Kumar Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ms. Akanksha Tripathi, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra,
Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, Ms. Tanisha Jahangir
Monir, Sri Zia Uddin Ahmad

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Amit Tiwari, G.A., Sri Shakti Shanker Tiwari,
Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 328 &
506 - Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3/4 -
Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67
- Second Bail Application - Requirement of New
Grounds - Judicial Discipline
The applicant, Yogendra Kumar Mishra, filed a
second bail application in Case Crime No. 324 of
2021 under Sections 376, 328, 506 IPC,
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, and Section 67 IT Act,
Police
Station
Kotwali,
District
Prayagraj,
alleging false implication in a case involving
rape, poisoning, criminal intimidation, and digital
offenses against the complainant and her
daughter. The applicant argued delayed FIR,
lack of specific details, enmity due to a prior
dispute, inconsistencies in St.ments under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no medical
evidence of rape, the complainant's daughter
being a major (19 years), and no evidence of
video recording or blackmail. The prosecution
countered that the first bail rejection order
implied consideration of all arguments, and a