{"id":193271,"date":"2009-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-26T01:47:19","modified_gmt":"2015-12-25T20:17:19","slug":"parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
                                           1\n\n                                               Reportable\n\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.       1941     OF 2009\n\n\n (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4867 of\n                           2007)\n\n\n\n\nParminder Kaur                                      ...Appellant\n\n\n                              Versus\n\n\nState of U.P. & Anr.                                ... Respondents\n\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   This appeal is filed challenging the order of the High<\/p>\n
Court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application<\/p>\n
filed by   the   appellant   herein    under   Section   482   of   the<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called “Cr.P.C.” for<\/p>\n
short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
sheet     of     case        No.        3045      of     2004        under    Sections<\/p>\n
420\/467\/468\/471         of    the        Indian        Penal    Code    (hereinafter<\/p>\n
called “IPC”       for    short),         pending       in     the   Court   of     Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    This prosecution was initiated on the basis of the<\/p>\n
First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.2.2004 lodged by<\/p>\n
one Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant<\/p>\n
herein,        alleging       the         offences        under        aforementioned<\/p>\n
Sections.       As per the said complainant, by respondent no.2<\/p>\n
one   Amrinder     Kaur      and     her       husband       Col.    Hargobind      Singh<\/p>\n
owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2.<\/p>\n
They were unable to look after the property and, therefore,<\/p>\n
appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the<\/p>\n
real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general<\/p>\n
attorney.       Respondent No. 2 herein, by virtue of general<\/p>\n
power     of    attorney,          sold     the        aforementioned        land     and<\/p>\n
delivered       possession         to     the    purchasers.            He   described<\/p>\n
appellant-Parminder Kaur as a stranger.                              Two Civil Suits<\/p>\n
came to be filed by the appellant, Parminder Kaur, claiming<\/p>\n
to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrinder Kaur, against<\/p>\n
the purchasers.          They were Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and<\/p>\n
267 of 2002.         In those Civil Suits, she prayed for the<\/p>\n
cancellation       of     the       Sale        Deeds.          According     to      the
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution,       while    instituting    these    suits       on   27.5.2002,<\/p>\n
the appellant had filed a false affidavit that she had come<\/p>\n
to know regarding the Sale Deed only on 16.5.2002 and had<\/p>\n
obtained a certified copy of Revenue Record on 27.5.2002.<\/p>\n
According to the complainant, in fact, the appellant had<\/p>\n
actually    moved     for    the   certified       copy    of    Khatauni    on<\/p>\n
6.5.2002 and had already received the copy on 7.5.2002.                     On<\/p>\n
that allegation, it was contended in the FIR that she had<\/p>\n
committed the offences as alleged.             The High Court took the<\/p>\n
view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by<\/p>\n
the prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it<\/p>\n
could not be said that no offence was disclosed from the<\/p>\n
same.      It is this judgment of the High Court, which is<\/p>\n
challenged before us.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    We have seen the FIR closely, on the basis of which<\/p>\n
the     offences    were     registered.       This       report     has   been<\/p>\n
authored by respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh S\/o Shri<\/p>\n
Gurbaksh Singh.       It has been stated in this report that he<\/p>\n
held a power of attorney on behalf of one Col. Hargobind<\/p>\n
Singh and “Amrinder Kaur” and on that basis, he sold the<\/p>\n
land of Amrinder Kaur to one Col. Sarabjeet Singh S\/o Avtar<\/p>\n
Singh and Namrata Chandi D\/o Hargursharan Singh (i.e. the<\/p>\n
daughter of the complainant).             It was pointed out that the
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
registration was effected in the same year.                                Similarly, he<\/p>\n
had sold one other land of Col. Hargobind Singh to one<\/p>\n
Prabhjyot Singh S\/o Teja Singh and Balbir Singh S\/o Gurjit<\/p>\n
Singh.       He also claimed that some other land out of the<\/p>\n
total land was also sold to one Manjeet Singh S\/o Jagir<\/p>\n
Singh and Balbir Singh S\/o Gurjit Singh.                                It was further<\/p>\n
asserted that the lands were in cultivation of the vendees.<\/p>\n
One    “unrelated         lady”     Parminder          Kaur       W\/o   Col.    Hargobind<\/p>\n
Singh, R\/o Village Behait, Distt. Rampur, who had no right<\/p>\n
in the said land, had filed two Civil Suits, being Civil<\/p>\n
Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and 267 of 2002 against Hargursharan<\/p>\n
Singh (the complainant) and also filed Civil Suit No. 268<\/p>\n
of    2002    against          Prabhjyot       Singh       in    the    Court     of    Civil<\/p>\n
Judge, Rampur.            It was claimed that said suits were pending<\/p>\n
disposal.         It was further claimed that the suits were filed<\/p>\n
by Parminder Kaur (appellant herein) and she supported the<\/p>\n
same with a false affidavit, in which she stated that she<\/p>\n
learnt about the sale of agricultural land on 16.5.2002 and<\/p>\n
immediately,            she    applied        for    the    certified       copy       of    the<\/p>\n
Revenue      records,          which     were        made       available    to    her        on<\/p>\n
27.5.2002         and    without        any    delay,       she    filed    the    present<\/p>\n
suit.        It    was        pointed    out        further      that   Parminder           Kaur<\/p>\n
(appellant herein) had already applied for certified copy<\/p>\n
of    Revenue       Records       on     6.5.2002          and    the   same      was       made
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
available to her on 7.5.2002.                However, to overcome the<\/p>\n
limitation, she altered the date from 6.5.2002 to 16.5.2002<\/p>\n
and 7.5.2002 to 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002.                    It was further<\/p>\n
claimed in the said report that Parminder Kaur had filed<\/p>\n
Civil Suit No. 267 of 2002 in the capacity of power of<\/p>\n
attorney on behalf of “Amrinder Hargobind Singh” and in<\/p>\n
fact, she had no concern with the land in question.                     It was<\/p>\n
further pointed out that the real owners of the land had<\/p>\n
not objected to the sale of land and the sale was being<\/p>\n
objected to by Parminder Kaur, who was an “unrelated woman”<\/p>\n
and she had no right to interfere.                  It was then claimed<\/p>\n
that    Parminder   Kaur,      in    order    to    cause    loss   to     the<\/p>\n
complainant, interpolated the dates of Revenue Records and,<\/p>\n
therefore,   the    documents       were   forged     and   the   same    were<\/p>\n
produced in the Court in order to defraud the Court and a<\/p>\n
false affidavit had been sworn in the Court and she was<\/p>\n
liable to be punished for the same.                   With the FIR, the<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 27.5.2002 sworn by Parminder Kaur in Suit<\/p>\n
Nos. 266 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 were filed alongwith other<\/p>\n
documents like Duplicate Khata No. 40, Duplicate Khatoni<\/p>\n
No. 40, Duplicate Khatoni Khata No. 2, Search Certificate<\/p>\n
dated 11.6.2002 of Office Asstt. Manager, Bilaspur, reply<\/p>\n
dated   10.6.2002    and    26.9.2002        and    Form    No.   148    dated<\/p>\n
6.5.2005   given    to   one    Surender      Kumar    by    Tehsildar     for
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
certified copy.          It is on this basis that the offence was<\/p>\n
registered, investigated into and the chargesheet was filed<\/p>\n
against the present appellant Parminder Kaur.<\/p>\n
5.   The present appellant Parminder Kaur is 74 years old<\/p>\n
lady.     It is claimed in the Special Leave Petition that the<\/p>\n
present appellant, in fact is the wife of Col. Hargobind<\/p>\n
Singh and is having indifferent health.                         It is claimed that<\/p>\n
Parmindar     Kaur       is    none      else,       but        the    complainant’s<\/p>\n
brother’s    wife    and      it   was   she     who    had       filed     the   three<\/p>\n
aforementioned suits, being Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002,<\/p>\n
267 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 on 27.5.2002.                             It is pointed<\/p>\n
out in the Special Leave Petition that she had, in fact,<\/p>\n
applied for the certified copy of the Revenue Records and<\/p>\n
it was she who prosecuted the suits in her capacity as the<\/p>\n
wife of Col. Hargobind Singh.                  She also clarified that she<\/p>\n
had applied for the Revenue Records on 16.5.2002 and the<\/p>\n
same were made available to her on 27.5.2002 and she had<\/p>\n
given   certified        copies    to    her     counsel        Shri    O.P.      Gupta.<\/p>\n
Further    she     has   pointed      out     that     earlier        the   power     of<\/p>\n
attorney     was     executed       by       husband       of     appellant,        Col.<\/p>\n
Hargobind Singh in favour of the complainant\/respondent No.<\/p>\n
2 on 3.7.1970 with regard to the land in question, however,<\/p>\n
it was revoked on 29.7.1975.                 She then pointed out that her
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
daughter Amrinder Kaur executed a power of attorney with<\/p>\n
regard to her land on 27.3.1991 and revoked the same in<\/p>\n
April, 1991.     The further claim is that after the certified<\/p>\n
copies of Revenue Records were given to her counsel Shri<\/p>\n
O.P. Gupta, she was asked at that time to put signatures on<\/p>\n
40 blank papers.       Her contention is that she had nothing to<\/p>\n
gain by altering the date on the certified copies by adding<\/p>\n
“1”, i.e., making “16” instead of “6” and “17” instead of<\/p>\n
“7”.     She further alleged that at the instance of Shri O.P.<\/p>\n
Gupta,    she   was    dubbed   as   a        hardened    criminal    and       two<\/p>\n
criminal     cases    were   registered         against    her.      She    also<\/p>\n
points out that she was taken to Rampur from Chandigarh and<\/p>\n
she was dumped in a dark cell and she remained in the<\/p>\n
custody for about a week and was granted bail only by the<\/p>\n
District Judge, Rampur.         Her contention is that all these<\/p>\n
were   the   schemes    conceived        by    the   respondent      No.    2   to<\/p>\n
anyhow put her behind the bars.                She points out that in one<\/p>\n
of the matters, respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh has<\/p>\n
claimed to be the owner on the basis of adverse possession<\/p>\n
of a land owned by her.         She further points out that a mere<\/p>\n
look at the documents in Civil Suit could show that she was<\/p>\n
never in Rampur on 27.5.2002 when the plaint was supposed<\/p>\n
to have been filed.\n<\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
6.    We have seen the papers filed alongwith the Special<\/p>\n
Leave    Petition,      viz.,    Annexure          P-3     on     Page    42     of   the<\/p>\n
Special Leave Petition’s Paper Book, wherein the date for<\/p>\n
submission of application has been shown to be 6.5.2002 and<\/p>\n
the date of delivery has been shown to be 7.5.2002.                              On the<\/p>\n
first page of the document, it is shown that the land of<\/p>\n
Col. Hargobind Singh S\/o Gurbaksh Singh was transferred in<\/p>\n
the name of Manjeet Singh S\/o Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh<\/p>\n
S\/o     Gurjit    Singh     on       the       basis       of     Sale     Deed        for<\/p>\n
Rs.2,78,000\/-.       On the second page of the Annexure, it is<\/p>\n
shown    that     the     land       of     Col.        Hargobind        Singh    stood<\/p>\n
transferred in the name of Prabhjyot Singh vide Sale Deed<\/p>\n
for Rs.4,60,000.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    We have also seen the plaint in Civil Suit No. 266 of<\/p>\n
2002.    The plaintiff is described as “Col. Hargobind Singh,<\/p>\n
Major S\/o Shri Gurbaksh Singh R\/o Village Behait, Tehsil<\/p>\n
Bilaspur,    Distt.       Rampur          (U.P.)        through     attorney          Smt.<\/p>\n
Parminder Kaur W\/o Col. Hargobind Singh R\/o Village Behait<\/p>\n
Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Rampur (U.P.)”.                           In Para 1 also,<\/p>\n
Parminder Kaur has described herself as the wife of Col.<\/p>\n
Hargobind Singh and it is asserted that the suit was being<\/p>\n
filed on behalf of Col. Hargobind Singh in the capacity of<\/p>\n
his   attorney.         Paras    2    and      3   of    the    plaint     gives      the
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
description of the various lands held by Col. Hargobind<\/p>\n
Singh.      In Para 4, it is pointed out that Hargursharan<\/p>\n
Singh     was   appointed       as    attorney       vide    power     of   attorney<\/p>\n
dated     3.4.1970.         Para      5     of    the      plaint    suggests    the<\/p>\n
revocation      of    the   power      of       attorney    and     the    intimation<\/p>\n
thereof to      the    concerned          authorities       like    Sub-Divisional<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Bilaspur and the respondent No. 2 etc.                           In Para<\/p>\n
6,   it    is   pointed         out   that       Sardar      Hargursharan       Singh<\/p>\n
executed a forged and fabricated Sale Deed with regard to<\/p>\n
the land comprising in Gatha No. 1\/15 M. area 5.36 acres in<\/p>\n
favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Manjeet Singh and<\/p>\n
Balbir Singh respectively, without any right or authority<\/p>\n
posing     himself     as   a    general         attorney    of     Col.    Hargobind<\/p>\n
Singh and got the same registered, whereas on that day, he<\/p>\n
had no such right or authority for executing a Sale Deed.<\/p>\n
On that day, i.e. on 10.1.1996, he was not a general power<\/p>\n
of attorney holder at all.                      It was pointed out that the<\/p>\n
mutation was also got done by the respondent No. 2 herein.<\/p>\n
In the plaint, it is suggested in Para 8 that plaintiff<\/p>\n
(Parminder Kaur) came to know about the cheating through<\/p>\n
the Record Keeper for the first time on 16.5.2002, when she<\/p>\n
asked for the copy of Khatoni.                   Para further goes on to say<\/p>\n
that:\n<\/p>\n
                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
      “plaintiff      got inspected the Revenue Records in the
\n      Office of       Registrar, Kannungo, Bilaspur and on the
\n      same day,       filled up the Form for getting certified
\n      copies of       the copy of the Khatoni and today dated
\n      27.5.2002      after getting the copy of the Khatoni, is
\n      filing the     present suit without any delay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again in Para 10, it is suggested that for the first time<\/p>\n
the cause of action arose on 16.5.2002 due to the execution<\/p>\n
of forged and void Sale Deed by Manjeet Singh (defendant<\/p>\n
No. 1 therein) without any right or authority.                     The plaint<\/p>\n
is shown to be filed on 27.5.2002.               There is a verification<\/p>\n
also on that date.         There is then an affidavit on record,<\/p>\n
again signed by Parminder Kaur, aged about 65 years, W\/o<\/p>\n
Col. Hargobind Singh, R\/o Village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur,<\/p>\n
Distt. Rampur, U.P., where all the contentions raised in<\/p>\n
the   plaint   are     reiterated.         We   have     seen    the    original<\/p>\n
affidavits also, which are in the name of Parminder Kaur.<\/p>\n
Similar    such      affidavits   are      to   be     seen     alongwith      the<\/p>\n
Special Leave Petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    In so far as C.S.No.267 of 2002 is concerned, the same<\/p>\n
was   filed    by    the   appellant       on   behalf    of     her    daughter<\/p>\n
Amrinder Kaur for whom she was holding power of attorney<\/p>\n
dated 4.2.2002.         Therein she sought setting side of the<\/p>\n
sale deed dated 3.7.1991 effected by the respondent no.2<\/p>\n
herein    on   the    ground   that       the   respondent       no.2    had   no<\/p>\n
authority to effect the sale of the land of Amrinder Kaur.
\n                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
The power of attorney dated 27.3.1991 effected by Amrinder<\/p>\n
Kaur was already cancelled before the date of sale.                   In<\/p>\n
that suit also she claimed that she had came to know of the<\/p>\n
fraudulent sale on 16.5.2002 when she inspected the revenue<\/p>\n
record which suggested that the concerned land was no more<\/p>\n
recorded   in   the     name   of   Amrinder    Kaur.     Further    the<\/p>\n
appellant filed a suit bearing C.S. No.268 of 2002 against<\/p>\n
Prabhjyot Singh on the same lines.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    The respondent no.2 also initiated one more criminal<\/p>\n
matter in which he asserted before the court regarding the<\/p>\n
same land that he was in adverse possession of the land in<\/p>\n
respect    of   which    the   civil    suits   were    filed   by   the<\/p>\n
appellant herein.       Besides these civil suits, she has also<\/p>\n
filed proceedings before the Revenue authorities for the<\/p>\n
change of revenue entries in her favour.           It may be noticed<\/p>\n
that those revenue entries in respect of the lands stood in<\/p>\n
favour of the vendees whose vendor was none else but the<\/p>\n
respondent no.2.        Ultimately the appellant did not succeed<\/p>\n
in those proceedings and hence she seems to have filed the<\/p>\n
aforementioned civil suits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   On the basis of the aforementioned so-called forgeries<\/p>\n
a First Information Report bearing No.32 of 2004 vide Crime<\/p>\n
No.75 of 2004 was registered against the appellant.                  It
\n                                           1<\/span><\/p>\n
seems that in another Crime No.390 of 2003 pending in the<\/p>\n
Court   of     CJM,     Rampur,        she        had      filed     an   exemption<\/p>\n
application praying for exemption from personal appearance<\/p>\n
which was granted while exemption application filed before<\/p>\n
the Bilaspur Court was declined.                        Her Transfer Petitions<\/p>\n
were also dismissed and those orders were maintained right<\/p>\n
upto this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   The     appellant       then    approached           the     High   Court    of<\/p>\n
Allahabad by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
for quashing the proceedings arising out of the charge-<\/p>\n
sheet   of    Case     No.3045       of     2004     for     the     offence     under<\/p>\n
Sections 420\/467\/468\/471 IPC.                     We have already given the<\/p>\n
details of the First Information Report dated 27.2.2004 on<\/p>\n
the   basis    of     which    the        aforementioned           prosecution     had<\/p>\n
commenced.      The Allahabad High Court, however, declined to<\/p>\n
interfere, relying on the judgment of this Court in K. Rama<\/p>\n
Krishna & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr [AIR 2000 SC 3330].<\/p>\n
The   High    Court     expressed          that    it      would     be   ordinarily<\/p>\n
reluctant      to     interfere           in   the       proceedings        at     the<\/p>\n
interlocutory stage.           The High Court also went on to record<\/p>\n
that in the instant case there was no legal bar against the<\/p>\n
continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of alleged<\/p>\n
offence and it was not the case where the allegations in
\n                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
the First Information Report even if are taken on the face<\/p>\n
value did not constitute the offence alleged nor could it<\/p>\n
be said that even without appreciating the evidence and<\/p>\n
merely    by    looking       at       the     complaint       or    the     FIR      or     the<\/p>\n
accompanying          documents,            the      offence        alleged          was     not<\/p>\n
disclosed.       It is this verdict of the High Court which is<\/p>\n
challenged before us.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    We must note, at this juncture, that the respondent<\/p>\n
no.2 has filed a huge counter affidavit to the petition<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant wherein every possible document has<\/p>\n
been    filed    including            all     the    documents        in     the      earlier<\/p>\n
Transfer    Petitions,           the     Revenue       proceedings          as       also    the<\/p>\n
pending criminal proceedings.                        Based on the assertion of<\/p>\n
the counter, his basic plea is that he was holding a valid<\/p>\n
power of attorney for the appellant and it was on the basis<\/p>\n
of that power that he sold the lands and had also given all<\/p>\n
the considerations to his brother Col. Hargobind Singh and<\/p>\n
the    appellant.           He    also        admits    that    he     sold        the      land<\/p>\n
belonging       to    their       daughter          Amarinder        Kaur.           However,<\/p>\n
before    the    criminal             court    he    asserted        that       he    was     in<\/p>\n
possession       of    the       land        right     from    1954        or    somewhere<\/p>\n
thereafter and hence had become owner by way of adverse<\/p>\n
possession.            It        is     quite        interesting        to       note        his
\n                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
aforementioned stand which he has given on oath before the<\/p>\n
criminal court which has been brought to our notice and<\/p>\n
which is not denied by the respondent no.2.                  However, this<\/p>\n
is neither the occasion nor the proper stage to consider<\/p>\n
the merits or de-merits of the said plea.                  All that we are<\/p>\n
concerned with is, whether the appellant could be said to<\/p>\n
have    committed   the    offence       of   forgery,     cheating,      etc.,<\/p>\n
which are being alleged against her on the basis of which<\/p>\n
she is facing the prosecution.                We have, therefore, heard<\/p>\n
the parties extensively in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.    We find that the huge counter affidavit of about 346<\/p>\n
pages is of no use as it merely relates to the pending<\/p>\n
litigation between the parties.               However, one thing is very<\/p>\n
certain therefrom that the appellant on the one hand and<\/p>\n
the respondent no.2 on the other hand are bitterly fighting<\/p>\n
civil    litigations      which   are     pending    before       the   Rampur<\/p>\n
Courts.     These   litigations          started    from    the    year    2002<\/p>\n
firstly in revenue Courts and then with the filing of three<\/p>\n
Civil Suits about which we have already mentioned above.<\/p>\n
The concerned FIR appears to have been filed on 27.2.2004,<\/p>\n
i.e., when the civil litigations, i.e., CS No.266 of 2002,<\/p>\n
CS 267 of 2002 and CS 268 of 2002 were pending.                     The very<\/p>\n
fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the
\n                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent no.2 who was none else but the real brother-in-<\/p>\n
law (husband’s real younger brother) against his sister-in-<\/p>\n
law   whom    he    described       as       an   “unrelated     person”,     the<\/p>\n
appellant     herein,    who   is    about        75    years   of   age   speaks<\/p>\n
volumes      in    so    far    as       propriety        of    such   criminal<\/p>\n
prosecutions is concerned.               It is absolutely clear from the<\/p>\n
manner in which the litigation is being fought that it is<\/p>\n
nothing      but    to    wreak      vengeance          that    the    criminal<\/p>\n
prosecution has been started.                     We particularly find the<\/p>\n
total absence of bona fides on the part of the respondent<\/p>\n
no.2 to file the First Information Report which we have<\/p>\n
quoted above.        We also are at a loss to understand as to<\/p>\n
what offence has been committed by the appellant herein and<\/p>\n
how could the court take cognizance of the FIR filed by the<\/p>\n
Bilaspur Police Station.             This is a classic example where<\/p>\n
the concerned Investigating Officer of the Bilaspur Police<\/p>\n
Station has totally subverted the investigation system and<\/p>\n
started   the      prosecution      of       an   old   lady.     We   are   also<\/p>\n
surprised that the said old lady was arrested and had to<\/p>\n
stay behind the bars for more than a week which fact is not<\/p>\n
disputed by even the counsel for the State of U.P.                            We<\/p>\n
also fail to understand as to how the trial court took<\/p>\n
cognizance of a non-existent offence mechanically.
\n                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
14.    The   only    allegation    which   appears   from   the   First<\/p>\n
Information Report is that the appellant altered the date<\/p>\n
from     “6.5.2002”      to     “16.5.2002”    and   “7.5.2002”      to<\/p>\n
“17.5.2002” and “27.5.2002”.            It seems from the certified<\/p>\n
copy that though she had applied for the certified copies<\/p>\n
of the revenue records on 6.5.2002 and the same were made<\/p>\n
available to her on 7.5.2002, she altered those dates in<\/p>\n
the copies filed by her in the court to “16.5.2002” and<\/p>\n
“17.5.2002” as also “27.5.2002”.           This is all the forgery<\/p>\n
which has been complained of by the respondent no.2 in the<\/p>\n
aforementioned FIR.           It is only on this basis that it is<\/p>\n
suggested that the said civil suits were filed on 27.5.2002<\/p>\n
and a false affidavit was sworn by the appellant.                 It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that in that affidavit also she had given the<\/p>\n
wrong dates.        The only basis for this allegation is in the<\/p>\n
following words:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “This interpolation of dates is apparent because
\n       from 15.5.2002 to 30.5.02 no one inspected the
\n       records of Khata No.40 of Village Beehat.     That
\n       in the letter dated 26.9.02 it has been made
\n       clear that the certified copy with regard to
\n       Khata No.40 situated in village Beehat Khatoni
\n       1.4.02 to 1.4.07 was got ready on 7.5.02 itself.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is then contended that:\n<\/p>\n
       “Smt.Parminder Kaur in order to cause loss to the
\n       applicant interpolated the dates of revenue
\n       records and thus the documents are forged and the
\n                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
     same were produced in the court in order to
\n     defraud the court and false affidavit has been
\n     filed in the court which is a crime…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
We specifically put a query to Shri Das, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. as also<\/p>\n
to the learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 to show<\/p>\n
us as to what advantage would the appellant be put to by<\/p>\n
changing the dates from “6” to “16” and “7” to “17” or as<\/p>\n
the case may be “27” and how loss would be caused to the<\/p>\n
respondent no.2.      Learned counsel were not able the answer<\/p>\n
the question.       At one point of time in the innumerable<\/p>\n
affidavits which were filed before us and as also in the<\/p>\n
written submissions on behalf of the respondent no.2 it is<\/p>\n
asserted that this has been done by the appellant to save<\/p>\n
the limitation.      We again asked the learned counsel as to<\/p>\n
how the limitation could be saved by adding “1” before the<\/p>\n
figure   “6.5.2002”      and   “7.5.2002    to    which    the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel had no answer and indeed they could not have any<\/p>\n
such answer.      The case of the appellant throughout appears<\/p>\n
to be that she did not do it.          Firstly, she contends that<\/p>\n
she did not file the civil suit on 27.5.2002 because she<\/p>\n
was not present at the time of filing of the civil suit on<\/p>\n
27.5.2002   and   that   the   civil   suits     appear   to   have   been
\n                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
filed through her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta.                             She had made<\/p>\n
very serious allegations against Shri Gupta.                               We will not<\/p>\n
go into those allegations as we are not called upon to do<\/p>\n
so nor do we find it necessary to do so.                        However, the fact<\/p>\n
remains that even if we presume that somebody interpolated<\/p>\n
the records by adding the figure “1” and even if it is<\/p>\n
presumed    that      the    appellant       did    so,       still    it    does    not<\/p>\n
become a forged document.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.   The   first      Section      of    the      IPC    alleged       against      the<\/p>\n
appellant is Section 420 and we are at a complete loss to<\/p>\n
understand      as    to    how   the    offence        could    even       be   alleged<\/p>\n
against     the      appellant      on    the      basis       of     the    so-called<\/p>\n
forgery.        Therefore,        that    Section        is     out    of    question.<\/p>\n
Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC which reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “463. Forgery – Whoever makes any false documents
\n      or false electronic record or part of a document
\n      or electronic record, with intent to cause damage
\n      or injury to the public or to any person, or to
\n      support any claim or title, or to cause any
\n      person to part with property, or to enter into
\n      any express or implied contract, or with intent
\n      to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
\n      commits forgery.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We do not find as to how the change brought in by adding<\/p>\n
figure    “1”     could     cause    damage        or    injury       to    public   or
\n                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
anybody or how it could support the claim or title or how<\/p>\n
it could cause any person to part with property or for that<\/p>\n
matter how there could be any intention to commit fraund.<\/p>\n
16.   The second Section alleged is Section 467 IPC which<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-
\n      Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
\n      valuable security, or a will, or an authority to
\n      adopt a son, or which purports to give authority
\n      to any person to make or transfer any valuable
\n      security, or to receive the principal, interest
\n      or dividends thereon, or to receive or delivery
\n      any   money,   movable   property,  or   valuable
\n      security, or any document purporting to be an
\n      acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment
\n      of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
\n      delivery of any movable property or valuable
\n      security, shall be punished with imprisonment for
\n      life, or with imprisonment of either description
\n      for a term which may extend to ten years, and
\n      shall also be liable to fine.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A mere look at the section would suggest that even this<\/p>\n
office could not be alleged against the appellant.<\/p>\n
17.   The next Section is Section 468 IPC which reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “468. Forgery for purpose of cheating – Whoever
\n      commits forgery, intending that the document or
\n      electronic record forged shall be used for the
\n      purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
\n      imprisonment of either description for a term
\n      which may extend to seven years, and shall also
\n      be liable to fine.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
This is the aggravated form of forgery which is punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 465 and is defined under Section 464 IPC.<\/p>\n
Section 464 speaks of making a false document.     The Section<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “464. Making a false document. A person is said
\n     to make a false document or false electronic
\n     record –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     First. – Who dishonestly or fraudulently –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   makes, signs, seals or executes a document
\n           or part of a document;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   makes or transmits any electronic record or
\n           part of any electronic record;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)   affixes   any   digital   signature    on   any
\n           electronic record;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)   makes any mark denoting the execution of a
\n           document or the authenticity of the digital
\n           signature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     With the intention of causing it to be believed
\n     that such document, or a part of document,
\n     electronic record or digital signature was made,
\n     signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed
\n     by or by the authority of a person by whom or by
\n     whose authority he knows that it was not made,
\n     signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or<\/p>\n
     Secondly.   –  Who,   without   lawful authority,
\n     dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
\n     otherwise, alters a document or an electronic
\n     record in any material part thereof, after it has
\n     been made, executed or affixed with digital
\n     signature either by himself or by any other
\n     person, whether such person be living or dead at
\n     the time of such alteration, or
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Thirdly – who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
\n    any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a
\n    document or an electronic record or to affix his
\n    digital   signature  on   any  electronic  record
\n    knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness
\n    of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason
\n    of deception practiced upon him, he does not know
\n    the contents of the document or electronic record
\n    or the nature of the alteration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The first clause        suggests        that    person   makes   a   false
\ndocument if he –\n<\/p>\n
    (1) dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals
\n    or executes a document, or part of a document, or
\n    makes any mark denoting the execution of a document;
\n    and<\/p>\n
    (2) does as above with the intention of causing it to
\n    be believed that such document or part of a document
\n    was made, signed, sealed or executed,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (a) by or by the authority of a person by whom or by
\n    whose authority it was not so made, signed, sealed or
\n    executed, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (b) at a time at which he knows that it was not made,
\n    signed, sealed or executed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is not the case here.       To attract the second clause of<\/p>\n
Section   464   there    has   to       be     alteration   of   document<\/p>\n
dishonestly and fraudulently.            So in order to attract the<\/p>\n
clause “secondly” if the document is to be altered it has<\/p>\n
to be for some gain or with such objective on the part of<\/p>\n
the accused.    Merely changing a document does not make it a<\/p>\n
false document.    Therefore, presuming that the figure “1”<\/p>\n
was added as was done in this case, it cannot be said that
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
the document became false for the simple reason that the<\/p>\n
appellant had nothing to gain from the same.                           She was not<\/p>\n
going to save the bar of limitation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.   The     last       offence     which       is     alleged        against      the<\/p>\n
appellant      is    Section       471    IPC.         This     section       is    not<\/p>\n
applicable     in    the    case    of    the       appellant    for    the    simple<\/p>\n
reason      that    we    have     already      found     that    there       was    no<\/p>\n
dishonest intention on the part of the appellant nor had<\/p>\n
she acted fraudulently.             This Section applies only in case<\/p>\n
of the use of a forged document as a genuine document.<\/p>\n
Since we have found that there is no element of forgery at<\/p>\n
all, there would be no question of there being any valid<\/p>\n
allegation against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.   We     are     surprised       at       the     manner     in     which       the<\/p>\n
investigation        was    done     and      the      manner     in     which      the<\/p>\n
cognizance was taken by the courts below.                         In its written<\/p>\n
submissions also the State has merely justified that the<\/p>\n
figure of “1” was added in order to show that there was no<\/p>\n
latches or negligence for filing civil suits.                            We do not<\/p>\n
understand as to how 10 days could have amounted to latches<\/p>\n
or negligence because ultimately the suits seem to have<\/p>\n
been filed after 10 days.                 The State has also relied upon<\/p>\n
the reported decision in Bharat Parekh vs. Central Bureau
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
of Investigation [(2008) 10 SCC 109] and has justified that<\/p>\n
all    this   can    be    considered        at   the      time   of    framing     of<\/p>\n
charges.      We are surprised at the attitude of the State<\/p>\n
when    it    is    apparent       on     the     record      that       the      whole<\/p>\n
prosecution is malafide, malicious and vengeanceful only to<\/p>\n
settle the scores of respondent no.2 against the appellant.<\/p>\n
A little effort has been made by the State to rely on the<\/p>\n
dismissal of the earlier Transfer Petitions.                           We have seen<\/p>\n
the judgment of this Court whereby the Transfer Petitions<\/p>\n
were dismissed.           There is absolutely no relevance of that<\/p>\n
judgment to the present controversy.                    There, this Court was<\/p>\n
not called upon to decide as to whether the FIR and the<\/p>\n
other material did suggest any commission of offence by the<\/p>\n
appellant.         This Court simply went on the convenience of<\/p>\n
the    parties     to   reject    the     transfer         petition.        In     fact<\/p>\n
during the debate when we put specific questions as to what<\/p>\n
advantage     would       the   appellant       get   by    aforementioned          so-<\/p>\n
called forgery, the learned counsel for State was unable to<\/p>\n
answer.       The same was the case with the learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel who        appeared     for     respondent      no.2.          He   was    also<\/p>\n
unable to justify the same.                  All through we found that the<\/p>\n
respondent no.2 was more keen than necessary and even after<\/p>\n
the arguments were over, the respondent no.2 has come out<\/p>\n
with the legal submissions whereby he had firstly withdrawn
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
the power of the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for<\/p>\n
him.      We have also seen those legal submissions.                       Very<\/p>\n
interestingly, in those legal submissions, the respondent<\/p>\n
no.2 says in para 2(a):\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “the respondent no.2 is the youngest in the whole
\n       family and was kept to serve the cause of my
\n       brother who is elder to me by 16 years.       I was
\n       always kept oppressed and depressed and was
\n       subjected    to   mental   and  physical   torture,
\n       blackmailing & exploitation at the hands of my
\n       brother & bhabhi – the petitioner herein.        My
\n       father died in 1985 and after that my brother &
\n       bhabhi had let loose their terror on me. This is
\n       for the first time that I have been compelled to
\n       approach the court for my survival.      My brother
\n       was in the Indian Army who had agricultural lands
\n       in   village    Behait,  tehsil  Bilaspur,   Distt.
\n       Rampur.   He had given me power of attorney duly
\n       registered from Dist Saugour, M.P. on 3.4.1970,
\n       which is valid till today and has not been
\n       cancelled so far.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The    expressions        in    the    above      submissions      are    self-<\/p>\n
sufficient.     If the respondent no.2 was kept oppressed and<\/p>\n
depressed at the instance of the appellant and her husband,<\/p>\n
we wonder as to how a power of attorney could be given and<\/p>\n
continued in his name.           Further the allegations are wanton,<\/p>\n
irresponsible and irrelevant.               Heavy attempt has been made<\/p>\n
in the legal submissions to refer to the earlier Transfer<\/p>\n
Petitions    which    were      dismissed    by    this   Court.     We    have<\/p>\n
already     shown    as    to    how   the     Transfer    Petitions       were<\/p>\n
irrelevant.    At one place it is suggested as follows:
\n                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
     “The petitioner is wise enough to create equity
\n     in her favour by alleging that she is ailing and
\n     ageing woman of 73 years having daughters and no
\n     son.    There is no provision in the Indian
\n     Constitution which entitles and empowers a senior
\n     citizen of India to commit economic as well as
\n     criminal offences and side by side provides full
\n     protection and shelter from getting the person
\n     persecuted, if found guilty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In para 2(e) of his submissions, respondent no. 2 states:<\/p>\n
     “Now the petitioner has been raising the issue as
\n     to what benefit she was going to derive from
\n     forging the dates from 6.5.02 to 16.5.02 and from
\n     7.5.02 to 17.5.02 & 27.5.02.    The correct answer
\n     to this has to be given by a person who has
\n     committed this fraud as is laid down u\/s 106 of
\n     the Evidence Act.    This is a self confessional
\n     case in which the petitioner has mentioned
\n     categorically that the forgery in changing the
\n     dates has been committed by her Advocate. She is
\n     habitual in committing fraud, whenever she gets
\n     opportunity to do so, just for greed of money and
\n     to get more and more material possession. If she
\n     was not going to derive any benefit from changing
\n     the dates from 10 to 20 days than why she has
\n     committed this fraud.     She cannot be absolved
\n     from committing the forgery which requires her
\n     trial in the appropriate court.     In fact it is
\n     not an ordinary case of condoning the delay of 10
\n     to 20 days but is a part of deep rooted
\n     conspiracy to usurp and grab the land of five
\n     families consisting of 40 members whose future
\n     and livelihood has been put at stakes by the
\n     petitioner.    After the land was sold by her
\n     husband and her daughter through their attorney,
\n     to common relations of both, the respondent no.2
\n     and the husband of the petitioner, the land
\n     prices had gone up by 10 times which led the
\n     petitioner to file six cases after a period of 11
\n     years with malafide intention to grab the land.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   (emphasis supplied)
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
We have deliberately quoted the whole para in order to show<\/p>\n
that even the respondent no.2 has not been able to show as<\/p>\n
to how the appellant could be benefited in any manner by<\/p>\n
changing the dates.                We, therefore, find that since there<\/p>\n
was   no    question     of     the       appellant         gaining      anything,       she<\/p>\n
would      not    have   made       the    aforementioned              changes     in     the<\/p>\n
document.         How the document is changed is not for us to<\/p>\n
explain.           However,        whosoever          may     have       changed        those<\/p>\n
documents, the said change did not and could not result in<\/p>\n
any   illegal       gains     to    the     appellant         or     illegal     loss     to<\/p>\n
anybody.          Such changes were, therefore, innocuous and did<\/p>\n
not give rise to any offences.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.   We do not go into the merits as we are completely<\/p>\n
convinced         that   this       is     a       case     for    a     malicious        and<\/p>\n
vengeanceful         prosecution          which       has     no       base.       It    is,<\/p>\n
therefore, well covered under the Guidelines 1 and 7 laid<\/p>\n
down by this Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs.<\/p>\n
Bhajan Lal<\/a> [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] which read as under:<\/p>\n
      “1.        Where the allegations made in the First
\n                 Information Report or the complaint, even if
\n                 they are taken at their face value and
\n                 accepted in their entirety do not prima-
\n                 facie constitute any offence or make out a
\n                 case against the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
       2-6    xxx   xxx    xxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       7.     Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
\n              attended with mala fide and\/or where the
\n              proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
\n              ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
\n              the accused and with a view to spite him due
\n              to private and personal grudge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.    This is apart from the fact that we are completely<\/p>\n
convinced of the whole lack of bona fides on the part of<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer who is reported to have retired<\/p>\n
now.    Even he has filed a Reply Affidavit before us as we<\/p>\n
had    directed     him    to    attend       the   court    seeing    the   utter<\/p>\n
misuse of his powers of investigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22.    We    expected     some   explanation         and    some    justification<\/p>\n
for the arrest as well as for the subsequent investigation<\/p>\n
of the non-existing crimes.               Obviously the whole affidavit,<\/p>\n
which we have seen very closely, is silent.                        Again reliance<\/p>\n
has been made on the earlier Transfer Petitions by this<\/p>\n
Police Officer also which is totally irrelevant for the<\/p>\n
present controversy.             He has not explained as to how he<\/p>\n
viewed the same as an offence of forgery, cheating, etc.,
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
and for that matter how dishonest intention was deduced by<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.    In view of the above we are of the clear opinion that<\/p>\n
this prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of<\/p>\n
law and we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and quash the Prosecution Case No.3045 of<\/p>\n
2004 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Rampur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               …………………………………….J.
\n                               (Tarun Chatterjee)<\/p>\n
                               ………………………………….J.
\n                               (V.S. Sirpurkar)
\nNew Delhi
\nOctober 26, 2009
\n2<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 Author: V Sirpurkar Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, V.S. Sirpurkar 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2009 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4867 of 2007) Parminder Kaur …Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-25T20:17:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-25T20:17:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6054,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-25T20:17:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-25T20:17:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-25T20:17:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009"},"wordCount":6054,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009","name":"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-25T20:17:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-26-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parminder Kaur vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 26 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=193271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}