Allahabad High Court
Smt Manjulata And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84475
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31111 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt Manjulata And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandra Shekhar Saran, 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 applicants with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 17.02.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of earlier Complaint Case No.15 of 2022 (now present Complaint Case No.371 of 2022) (Smt. Pushplata vs. Smt. Manjulata) pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun or to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that O.P. no.2, who is Jethani and own sister of applicant no.1, has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.01.2022 against the present applicants wherein it has been alleged that the accused-applicants have fraudulently got registered a Gift Deed with respect of her property in their favour on 04.12.2020. The application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint case and after adducing evidence, summoning order has been passed on 17.02.2024, which has been assailed by means of instant application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that actually O.P. no.2 had executed the Gift Deed in favour of applicant no.1 and on the basis thereof, name of applicant no.1 has also been mutated in the revenue records over the plot in question on 18.02.2021. He submits that due to pressure of her daughter, O.P. no.2 has moved an application before Tehsildar to recall the order dated 08.02.2021, which is still pending. He next submitted that O.P. no.2 has also filed a suit for cancellation of the said Gift Deed on 03.08.2021, which is still pending before the concerned court below. He contended that as per allegation made in the complaint, no case u/s 420 IPC is made out against the applicants. He also added that the allegations against the applicants are fake and with malafide intention just to harass them. He further submitted that in the present matter there is civil dispute between the parties and O.P. no.2 has tried to give it colour of criminality, which is pure abuse of process of law. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on paragraph 11 of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Usha Chakraborty and another vs. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 2023 Supreme Court 688. The same is quote below for ready reference:-
"11. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice."
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that O.P. No.2 in her statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that her thumb impression was obtained on some document which was neither read over to her nor she was not able to read it herself being an illiterate lady. In her statement, O.P. no.2 has further deposed that after 6-7 months she came to know that her dewar and dewarani (present applicants) have got executed a Gift Deed with respect to her property in their favour, fraudulently. He further submitted that the impugned summoning order suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is a case wherein a Gift Deed was executed by O.P. no.2, who is a widow lady aged about 80 years, in favour of applicant no.1. When O.P. no.2 came to know about the consequences of the execution of the Gift Deed in favour of the applicants, she has instituted a civil suit for cancellation of the said Gift Deed on 03.08.2021, which is still pending consideration before the competent court. Apart from it, she has also moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as a complaint case and the court below after recording evidence of the complainant/O.P. no.2 and the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and conducting preliminary enquiry in the matter has passed summoning order on 17.02.2024.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants, placing reliance on the judgment of Usha Chakraborty's case (supra), has advanced a categorical submission that in cases where civil dispute is going on between the parties, the criminal prosecution cannot be initiated or allowed to continue, as the same would definitely amount to abuse of process of law.
9. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicants, in my view, does not stand to reason in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389, wherein it has been clearly held that criminal proceedings can go on along with other proceedings in the matter of economic offences. In paragraph 11 of aforesaid judgment it has been held as follows:-
"11. The inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is a well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."
10. Further, in the matter of Punit Beriwala vs The State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2025 INSC 571, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court is various judgments, has held that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.) (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Heed v. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals vs. Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686.]
11. Where any act for which a civil suit is filed also has a criminal angle involved in that and both the proceedings can go on together. It is apparent, prima facie, this is a case of fraud wherein the Gift Deed was made to have been executed.
12. In view of aforesaid discussions as well as the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as enumerated above, I see no illegality in the impugned summoning order.
13. The instant application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2025/Manish Himwan
