Allahabad High Court
Sanajy Gaur Advocate And Ors. vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 7 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1021
A.F.R.
Court No. - 18
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 885 of 2013
Applicant :- Sanajy Gaur Advocate And Ors.
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- R.N.S Chauhan,Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui,Sushil Kumar Singh,Sushil Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Munni Lal Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Applicants have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 24.3.2012, cognizance order dated 30.7.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2618 of 2011, titled State Vs. Anees Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 2011, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.
Briefly, the facts leading to the petition are that on the basis of a written complaint given by Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate-opposite party no.2, the above noticed case crime was registered, wherein it is alleged that the land comprised in Gata No. 592 measuring 0.809 hectares, owned by Savitri Devi D/o Awadh Baksh Singh was purchased by complainant through Jamuna Prasad S/o Puttu Lal. In the said sale deed, Jamuna Prasad got entered names of his daghter-in-law Gyanwati and his friend Anees Khan, therefore, a civil suit bearing no. 132 of 2004, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. Savitri Devi and others was filed to seek a decree of declaration for correction of the said sale deed. The suit was decreed in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the names of Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan were ordered to be removed. Later on, Sanjay Gaur S/o Puttu Lal (applicant no.1) in connivance with his relatives namely, Gyanwati W/o Jay Prakash and Anees Khan S/o Hasan Khan entered into a conspiracy to grab 3/4th share of the complainant's holding, who by forging his signatures got prepared documents and got executed a sale deed in his favour. As per the allegations, the witnesses to the instrument of sale also facilitated the commission of crime. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.
After registration of the case, the investigation was carried out and through the impugned final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet against the applicants was filed. Hence, this application.
Learned counsel for applicants has argued that the allegations contained in the F.I.R itself shows that the complainant-opposite party no.2 has already filed a civil suit bearing no. 132 of 2004, and the case of the prosecution is based upon the documentary material, which shows that the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature, but in order to abuse of the process of law, the complainant has falsely implicated the applicants in the impugned criminal case. Learned counsel submits that the complainant acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 11.3.1996 and as per this, vendor Savitri Devi had transferred all her rights in the said property in favour of four purchasers namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan, and the instrument of sale is a registered instrument, which bears the signatures of all the parties including the witnesses, therefore, there cannot be a doubt about the number of purchasers.
Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that the suit initially filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 seeking a decree of declaration for correction and removal of the names of other three purchasers was decreed in favour of complainant vide ex parte decree dated 16.10.2006, but the said decree was later on set aside on 26.10.2007, as application under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure filed by aggrieved co-sharers was allowed. Learned counsel states that the suit is still pending for adjudication, wherein the applicant no.1 has also been impleaded on the basis of sale deed dated 20.7.2007 executed by his three vendors, who became co-sharer of the complainant-opposite party no.2, and in this background, it is evident that the registration of F.I.R. on 4.6.2011 is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. According to learned counsel, the applicant nos. 2 to 4 are the witnesses to the sale deed dated 20.7.2007, whereas the applicant no.5 has been impleaded merely on the ground that he is a clerk with the applicant no.1-Advocate. He prays that the impugned charge sheet as well as impugned cognizance order be set aside.
The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for complainant-opposite party no.2, who while referring to the counter affidavit has argued that merely because a civil suit is pending between the parties, it would not mean that the criminal proceedings cannot continue, particularly when the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie show the commission of offences of forgery and cheating. Learned counsel submits that the ex parte decree dated 16.10.2006 conferred absolute title upon the complainant-opposite party no.2 as the names of other three purchasers contained in the sale deed dated 11.3.1996 were directed to be removed, therefore, the sale deed dated 20.7.2007 executed by the three alleged co-purchasers of opposite party no.2 would not pass a valid title in favour of subsequent purchaser-applicant no.1. Learned counsel submits that the alleged title in favour of the vendors of applicant no.1 stood taken away, and the execution of sale deed dated 20.7.2007 by them is apparently a result of fraud, committed to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, therefore, it would not be a case where the facts and circumstances of the case do not constitute the alleged offences. Learned counsel submits that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer prima facie shows the involvement of the accused, who have been rightly sent to face trial, thus, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He prays that the application be dismissed.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer on the similar lines, who has argued that the execution of sale deed dated 20.7.2007 could not have been executed by the vendors of applicant no.1, therefore, the alleged offences are made out and the charge sheet has been filed on the basis of incriminating evidence showing involvement of the beneficiary Sanjay Gaur and other accused persons. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the prosecution deserves to be afforded an opportunity to discharge the onus against the accused, and otherwise alternatively also the accused can press their claim before the trial court at the stage of consideration of the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. He prays that the application be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the controversy between the parties revolves around the transfer of title of land comprised in Gata No. 592 measuring 0.809 hectares, which was originally owned by Savitri Devi, and she had disposed of the said land by executing a sale deed dated 11.3.1996, whereby the property was sold in favour of complainant Rakesh Kumar Gupta and three others namely, Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan. The said document has been placed on record by the applicants as Annexure No.2 of the restoration application, and a perusal of the same would show that it does not contain any overwriting, much less to suggest that the names of other three purchasers were added later with the complainant. This instrument of sale is a registered document, which is signed by the parties and thumb marked also, but there is nothing on record to show that the complainant ever raised any objection at the stage of execution of the document, who has chosen to file the civil suit on 23.2.2004.
No doubt, the ex parte decree was passed in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2 on 16.10.2006 and the second sale deed dated 20.7.2007 was executed by the vendors of applicant no.1 after the said decree, but the ex parte decree did not survive for long and was set aside on 26.10.2007. Examining the matter conversely, and if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the vendors of applicant no.1 had no title to pass on further to applicant no.1, even then the applicant no.1 cannot be said to have made a wrongful gain. Besides, the vendors of applicant no.1, who had executed the sale deed on 20.7.2007 were not aware that the title of the subject land acquired by them alongwith complainant through sale deed dated 11.3.1996 does not exist with them.
Most importantly, the above background clearly shows that the rights of the parties would be determined by the civil court and the parties have already setup their claims against each other, therefore, considering this background, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, and no offence as alleged by the complainant would be made out. That apart, there is no explanation behind the long delay in lodging the criminal case, which is an after thought and it amounts to abuse of the process of law.
At this juncture, reliance can be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012, wherein while examining a similar issue in the context of exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observations :-
"7. 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, had laid down the principles and guidelines for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below :-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., 1973 can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the continuation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Resultantly, present application succeeds and charge sheet dated 24.3.2012, cognizance / summoning order dated 30.7.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 2618 of 2011, titled State Vs. Anees Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 2011, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur and the proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.
The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
P.S. Parihar
