'Abuse Of Process' : Supreme Court Hauls Up Advocate Who Lodged FIR Against 71-Year-Old Woman Alleging Forgery In 1971 Sale Deed
The Court issued a warrant to the Advocate who did not appear.
The Supreme Court directed an advocate to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on him for lodging an FIR in 2023 alleging forgery of a sale deed executed more than five decades ago, in 1971. Observing that the case appeared to be an abuse of the process of law, the Court also called upon the Station House Officer concerned to show cause as to why the proceedings be not...
The Supreme Court directed an advocate to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on him for lodging an FIR in 2023 alleging forgery of a sale deed executed more than five decades ago, in 1971. Observing that the case appeared to be an abuse of the process of law, the Court also called upon the Station House Officer concerned to show cause as to why the proceedings be not quashed.
The accused in the FIR was a 71-year old woman.\
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and NK Singh was considering the petition filed by the woman, who was denied anticipatory bail by the Allahabad High Court.
The Court criticised the High Court for the "casual" manner in which the petition was dismissed.
Staying the arrest of the petitioner-woman, the bench observed,
"It is quite unfortunate that the Allahabad High Court has illogically turned down the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who is a 71 years old woman, and when she is neither seller nor purchaser nor a witness or the beneficiary of the sale deed dated 21.08.1971. The casual manner in which the impugned order has been passed warrants introspection. We will not say more than this at this stage."
The Court noted that respondent No.2-complainant was an advocate by profession and he was evading service. As such, the Court issued bailable warrants to secure his presence on the next date. It further added that if the complainant shows any reluctance in accepting notice, his presence would be secured through non-bailable warrants.
Since complainant lodged the FIR in 2023 alleging forgery of a 1971 sale deed, the Court also asked him to show cause as to why exemplary cost be not imposed on him. It further asked the SHO of the concerned police station to produce the original record leading to registration of the FIR and show cause as to why the proceedings be not quashed, since they prima facie seemed to be an abuse of process of law.
The matter is next listed on October 8.
Notably, in April as well, the Supreme Court had called out the Allahabad High Court for being "callous" in exercising discretion while granting bail. In this case, bail was granted by the High Court to 13 persons accused in several cases involving inter-State trafficking of minors, after which they absconded and did not attend the court proceedings.
Last year, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure with the Madhya Pradesh High Court for adopting a casual approach in refusing to consider the plea of a 70-year-old ailing man for suspension of the sentence. While granting bail to the petitioner, the top Court said that the plea for suspension of sentence should be considered liberally in cases of fixed term sentences, unless an exceptional circumstance arises.
In November, 2024, the Supreme Court deprecated High Courts' denial of bail in "routine manner" while fixing timelines for conclusion of trials. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and AG Masih emphasized that High Courts should not impose time-bound schedules for the conclusion of trials when rejecting bail applications.
Case Title: USHA MISHRA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR., SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9346/2025