Allahabad High Court
Dr. Dinesh Chandra Khare And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93957
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12463 of 2017
Applicant :- Dr. Dinesh Chandra Khare And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Yadav,Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Sushil Shukla,Vinod Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Rao
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.
2. The instant application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 31-10-2016, cognizance order dated 15-03-2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 441 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Dinesh Chandra and Others), arising out of case crime no. 144 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, district Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Kanpur Nagar.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants no. 1 and 2 are senior citizens and retired doctors from government service, while applicant no. 3 is their son, who has been residing and working in the United States since 2014 and has not visited India thereafter. On 28.12.2015, applicants no. 1 and 2 entered into an unregistered agreement to sell their plot measuring 592 sq. yards to the informant for a total consideration of approximately ?62 lakhs, receiving ?3 lakhs as advance. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed would be executed within one month upon payment of the remaining amount; however, instead of fulfilling his obligation, the informant attempted to forcibly take possession of the plot. Consequently, on 28.05.2016, the applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 1114 of 2016 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar, and tendered a banker?s cheque of ?3 lakhs for refund of the advance. In retaliation, the informant lodged an F.I.R. on 05.06.2016 under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC at P.S. Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar, falsely implicating not only applicants no. 1 and 2, but also applicant no. 3, who was not even present in India at the relevant time. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on 31.10.2016 under the said sections. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.03.2017, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicants, which is impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide, instituted with the sole intention to harass the applicants, and constitute a gross abuse of the process of law. It is contended that no cognizable offence is made out from a bare perusal of the complaint, and the summoning order has been passed mechanically by the learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind and in complete disregard of the absence of any injury report or independent witness. It is further submitted that the implication of applicant no. 3, the son of applicants no. 1 and 2, who has not visited India since 2014, clearly smacks of mala fides on the part of the informant and reflects an attempt to create undue pressure upon the applicants. It is also submitted that the entire dispute arises out of a civil transaction pertaining to an agreement to sell, and the criminal case has been lodged merely as a tool of coercion. Furthermore, it is argued that no offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is made out, even if the allegations are taken to be ex facie true. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Kunti vs. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 109 (relevant para 111); Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 5 SCC 360 (relevant page 363); and Dalip Kaur vs. Jagnar Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 696.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that from perusal of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the Court below has rightly taken cognizance against the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute between the parties primarily arises out of a civil transaction relating to an agreement to sell immovable property. It appears from the facts that upon the failure of the informant to pay the balance consideration, the applicants instituted a civil suit for cancellation of the agreement and refund of the advance amount, which preceded the lodging of the F.I.R. The timing of the criminal complaint, in close proximity to the filing of the civil suit, indicates that the F.I.R. was lodged with a view to exert undue pressure on the applicants.
7. So far as applicant no. 3 is concerned, the admitted position is that he has been residing and working in the United States since 2014 and had not returned to India thereafter. His implication in the matter, despite his physical absence, appears wholly unwarranted and malafide. Furthermore, there is no injury report or independent witness to support the allegations made in the F.I.R., and even if the allegations are taken at face value, the essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are not made out. The impugned proceedings, therefore, appear to be an abuse of the process of law.
8.. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, has observed in paragraph no.8 that there is a tendency of attempting to give cloak of a criminal offence to the matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature. Paragraph no.8 is being quoted below:-
"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind."
9. Similarly in the case of Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2021) 14 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph no.33 as under:-
"33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, this appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge-sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra [Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 76] extracted above."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2023 SCC Online SC 603, observed in paragraph no.36, that tendency to convert pure civil dispute into criminal dispute is abuse of process of Court, hence must be interfered with. Paragraph no.36 is being quoted below:-
"36. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, there is a huge, and quite frankly, unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no. 2/her family members. It is evident that resort was now being had to criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear case of vengeance."
11. From legal position mentioned herein above, it is clear that when dispute is purely civil in nature then permitting criminal proceeding is abuse of process of Court.
12. Accordingly, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the instant application is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 31.10.2016, the cognizance order dated 15.03.2017, as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 441 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Dinesh Chandra and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
pks/Manish Himwan
