Allahabad High Court

Rajpal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143621
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
***** 
 
(SL No.6)
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43031 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rajpal And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Shahzad Alam,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shahzad Alam, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 05.10.2024, Complaint dated 04.04.2024 as well as the the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 10182 of 2024 (Priyanka Deshwal vs. Rajpal and Others) under Sections 452, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. - Kotwali City, District- Bijor, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), court No.4, District- Bijnor.

3. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that the father of the opposite party no.2 had sold the property to one Rahul Kumar Singh, from whom the applicant no.3 had purchased the said property. However, a civil suit with regard to the said property sold to Rahul is pending between the father of the opposite party no.2, said Rahul Kumar, and applicant no.1 and 2. Due to the said dispute, the opposite party no.2 had repeatedly filed complaints against the applicants and this is third complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that with regard to the same incident, as alleged in the instant complaint case, the police was called and thereupon applicants no.1, 2 and 3 were challaned under Section 107, 116 and 151 Cr.P.C. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since there is a property dispute between the applicants and the father of the opposite party number no.2, due to which continuously the opposite party no.2 is filing false complaints against the applicants herein, in which the applicants have been summoned in the instant case vide order dated 05.10.2024 for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the nature of dispute between the parties is purely of a civil in nature. Thus, the instant case is nothing but a malicious prosecution on the part of the opposite party no2. It is further alleged that from the allegations as made in the complaint case, no offence is made out against the applicants herein. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings in the instant case.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court dated 12.03.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1570 of 201 (Naresh Kumar and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another).

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A submits that the allegations as made in the said complaint case on 01.04.2024, the applicants herein entered into the house of the opposite party no.2 and tried to demolish the wall between the house of the applicants and the opposite party no.2 and they also abused and assaulted and molested the opposite party no.2. Thereupon, the opposite party no.2 had called on the Helpline No 112. Therefore, the police came on the spot and challaned the applicants for the offences under Sections 107, 116 and 151 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is apparent that since the police has also intervened in the incident, therefore, it cannot be said that no such incident has taken place and it is a malicious prosecution. From the allegations as made in the complaint a prima facie case has been made out against the applicants. The pendency of the civil dispute between the parties is a sufficient motive to cause the incident. In view thereof, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since a prima facie case is established, from the allegations as made in the complaint, and which is duly supported by the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., in view thereof, learned A.G.A submits that no intervention is called for in the instant case.

7. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that a civil suit is pending between the parties with regard to the property in question. Previously also, the complaints were filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein. Thus, there is a continuous enmity between the parties. As per the allegations made in the instant complaint case, the applicants have forcibly entered into the house of the opposite party no.2 and tried to demolish the wall in between the house of the applicant and the opposite party no.2, which was objected. Thereupon, the applicants have beaten the opposite party no.2 and also tried to demolish the wall of the opposite party no.2. Thereupon, the opposite party no.2 has called Helpline No. 112. Thereupon, the police came and intervened and pacified the dispute between the parties. Thus, since it is the admitted case of the applicant that the police came on the spot and intervened, therefore, it cannot be said that the incident has not taken place. Thus, there is an enmity and the incident has taken place, is well established. Thus, we will have to examine the allegations as made in the instant complaint case. From the allegations as made in the complaint case, a prima facie case under Sections 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants herein. The said allegations are duly supported by the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which has been discussed in detail in the summoning order dated 05.10.2024.

8. In view thereof, since a prima facie case is made out, this Court do not find any good reason to interfere with the summoning order and the proceedings of the instant complaint case. So far as the judgments in Naresh Kumar Supra (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:

?12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.?

(emphasis supplied)

Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360. Similarly, dealing with the distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.

8. In the case at hand, the dispute between the parties was not only essentially of a civil nature but in this case the dispute itself stood settled later as we have already discussed above. We see no criminal element here and consequently the case here is nothing but an abuse of the process. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 02.12.2020. The criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.113 of 2017 will hereby stand quashed."

9. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand : (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Apex Court has categorically observed that where the complaints discloses a civil transactions and the same also has a criminal texture, then, it is the duty of the High Court concerned, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to see whether the dispute which is essentially of a civil in nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence or some elements of criminal nature are involved in the said complaint case.

10. From the allegations as made in the instant complaint case, the pendency of the civil dispute is a motive and cause of enmity between the parties. So far as the criminal incident as such, which is narrated in the complaint case, has also taken place due to such enmity. The police has also intervened in the said criminal action on the part of the applicants herein. In view thereof, though there was a civil dispute with regard to the property, but so far as the incident as narrated in the instant complaint case, categorically criminal elements are involved in the instant complaint case.