Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Lodged By A 'Ghost', Slams IO For Investigating, Filing Chargesheet In The Matter

The case perplexed a bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery as it noted that the police had even investigated the case based on the dead person's statement. Expressing shock over the same, the Court observed thus:

“It is very strange that a dead person has not only lodged an FIR, but has recorded his statement before Investigating Officer and thereafter a vakalatnama has also been filed on behalf of him in the present case. It appears that all the proceedings are undertaken by a ghost.”

The Court also slammed the investigating officer for recording a statement of a dead person and even filed a chargesheet in the matter.

“The Court is speechless that how investigation was conducted by Investigating Officer by recording a statement of a dead person…”, the Court remarked as it quashed the criminal case proceedings.

The Court further directed the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar, to take note of the facts of the case and conduct an enquiry against the concerned IO.

“…it is directed that Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar will take note of facts of present case that a ghost is creating trouble to innocent person by lodging FIR, giving his statement and conduct an enquiry against concerned I.O. and be placed in record of this case.”

The Court also asked the President of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association to advise the lawyer, who filed a vakalatnama on behalf of the deceased man, to remain cautious.

“Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate has filed a vakalatnama on behalf of Shabd Prakash on 19.12.2023, signed by one Mamta Devi, without disclosing that said Shabd Prakash has died even before lodging FIR. A copy of the order is sent to President Allahabad Bar Association to take note and to advice the Advocate concern to remain cautious in future.”

The Court was essentially dealing with a petition filed by Purushottam Singh and 4 others seeking quashing of a criminal case filed by one Shabd Prakash concerning a land dispute.

During the hearing in the case, the Court was apprised that Shabd Prakash had already died (on December 19, 2011), i.e., three years before the FIR was lodged in the case.

The fact about his death was corroborated by a report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, based on a copy of his wife along with a copy of his death certificate.

Against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the Court was surprised over the fact that a “dead person (a ghost)” had lodged an FIR three years after his death and thereafter, not only did he record his statement, but a charge sheet was also filed by the police wherein the said dead person was proposed as one of the prosecution witnesses.

Case title - Purushottam Singh And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 493