Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shahin Begum Bano @ Gulab Jahan And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78204
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18104 of 2016
Applicant :- Smt. Shahin Begum Bano @ Gulab Jahan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- C.K.Parekh,Gaurav Tiwari,Narendra Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9988 of 2015 (State vs. Sahin Begum), arising out of Case Crime No.447 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station-Cantt, District-Varanasi pending in the Court of C.J.M., Varanasi.
3. The facts of the case are that applicant no.1 was married to O.P. no.2. A gift deed was executed on 25.04.2008 by O.P. no.2 in favour of his wife, applicant no.1 wherein applicant nos.2 and 3 were the marginal witnesses of the gift deed. Though, O.P. no.2 had executed the gift deed in favour of applicant no.1, but was still enjoying the property and tried to oust the applicants from the property, hence, a case was filed by applicant no.1 against O.P. no.2 being Complaint Case no.1387 of 2012 wherein the concerned trial court vide order dated 13.08.2012 had issued direction restraining O.P. no.2 from selling the property in question. As a counter blast, O.P. no.2 has lodged an FIR on 02.06.2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC against applicant no.1 (wife) and applicant nos.2 and 3, who were only the attesting witnesses of the gift deed. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 04.08.2014 and summons were issued on 04.11.2016. By means of instant application, the applicants are challenging the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the criminal case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during pendency of the instant application, applicant no.1 passed away on 18.11.2022 as such, the instant application survives for adjudication qua applicant nos.2 and 3. He further submits that as far as applicant nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are the marginal witnesses to gift deed dated 25.04.2008 and as such, they have no concern with the matrimonial dispute between applicant no.1 and O.P. no.2 and they also have no concern with the property in dispute. They are simply the marginal witnesses, who have attested the fact that the gift deed was executed on 25.04.2008 and as such there is no clause in the aforesaid gift deed which raises any liability upon applicant nos.2 and 3 with regard to the property in question. He further submits that O.P. no.2 has tried to cloak the civil dispute with criminal proceedings as civil suit being Original Suit No.1387 of 2014 for cancellation of gift deed dated 25.04.2008 was pending. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a serious note on the issue, that it has now become a trend to initiate criminal proceedings trying to cloak the civil dispute and such practices may be restricted. The I.O. has not collected any credible material or evidence against applicant nos.2 and 3 to hold them guilty and liable. He further submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicants is pure abuse of process of law and has been initiated just to put pressure on the applicants, so that they do not pursue the civil suit filed by O.P. no.2 for cancellation of the gift deed. To buttress his arguments he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (2) SCC 636. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telangana, (2023) 2 SCC 195 wherein the Court has categorically held that civil dispute cannot be cloaked with criminal proceeding and any such proceeding initiated and followed up, is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
6. It is evident that O.P. no.2 had initially executed a gift deed on 25.04.2008 in favour of his wife, applicant no.1 and after matrimonial discord, O.P. no.2 has filed an FIR on 02.06.2013 just to put undue pressure.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that civil dispute cannot be cloaked with criminal dispute and this case is a classic example where a civil dispute is given a colour of criminal dispute. Moreover, in this case applicant no.1 has passed away. Applicant nos.2 and 3 who are just witnesses of deed and even assuming the allegation levelled by O.P. no.2 is correct, still no prima facie case can be made out against the witnesses.
8. In view of aforesaid facts and discussions, the instant application is hereby allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9988 of 2015 (State vs. Sahin Begum), arising out of Case Crime No.447 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station-Cantt, District-Varanasi pending in the Court of C.J.M., Varanasi are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Manish Himwan
