Allahabad High Court
Shankar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 November, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:198369-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 233 of 2025
Shankar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
(Dictated by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J)
1. The present appeal emanates from the judgement dated 26.8.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra in Complaint Case No. 4710 of 2017 (Shankar Singh Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar and Another), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120B IPC, Police Station- Sikandra, District- Agra, whereby the accused/opposite part-2 has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.
2. Perused the record.
3. We have heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1.
4. The dispute between the parties centers around a registered sale-deed dated 23.7.2003, executed by Sri Vinayak Sahakar Awas Samiti Limited/Vinayak Housing in respect of Plot No. 217, area 403 sqr. yd. situate at vellage Babarpur, District- Agra on a sale consideration of Rs. 26,000/-.
5. After expiry of almost 10 years from the date of execution of aforementioned sale-deed, the complainant/appellant filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the year 2013. The genesis of complaint made by complainant/appellant is to the effect that the sale-deed in respect of the land in dispute was executed in favour of complainant/appellant on 27.3.2003 but the possession in respect of the said land has not yet been handed over to the complainant/appellant.
6. The allegations made in the aforesaid complaint have been noted by Court below in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgement. Accordingly, paragraph 2 of the impugned judgement is reproduced herein below:
"2. ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? 27.03.2003 ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????/?????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? 403 ??????, ????? ???-217 ????? ???? ??????? ????? ? ???? ???? ?? 26,000/- ????? ??? ????? ??, ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? 13.02.2005 ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??????????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ??, ???? ??????? ?? ?????? 20.09.2001 ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? 60.000/- ?????, ?????? 25.10.2002 ?? 35,000/- ????? ??? ?????? 12.03.2003 ?? 33,000/- ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??, ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??, ???? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????????? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????"
7. After filing of aforesaid complaint, the jurisdictional Magistrate, examined the same and having undertaken the said exercise, he came to the conclusion that above mentioned application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. shall be treated as a complaint. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Magistrate proceeded with the same as a complaint case. Consequently, the statements of complainant and that of his witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate evaluated the allegations made in the compliant in the light of above. On basis thereof he recorded his prima faice satisfaction to proceed with the complaint. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Magistrate passed the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 5.11.2024, whereby and where-under the accused were summoned under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC, to stand their trial..
8. Charges were framed against the accused who denied the same and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.
9. Prosecution in discharge of its burden to prove it's case, adduced the following prosecution witnesses- P.W.1-Shanker Singh, P.W.2-Mahendra Nath Chaturvedi, P.W.3- Prabhat Ranjan.
10. It is apposite to mention here that no documentary evidence was filed by the complainant/appellant before Court below.
11.. Vide order dated 5.1.2024, Court below segregated the case of accused Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar.
12. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse incriminating circumstances were disclosed to accused for their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the suggestions made to them.
13. Upon appraisal and appreciation of evidence on record Court below came to the conclusion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and furthermore, remedy lies to the complainant-appellant to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance as already noted above.. Accordingly, by means of judgement dated 26.8.2025, Court below acquitted the accused/opposite party-2 of the charges framed against him on the following grounds/reasons:- .
(i) Sale-deed dated 27.3.2003, regarding the land in dispute is a registered sale-deed. However, it has not been pleaded by complainant that the accused had no right to execute the sale-deed. As such, aforementioned sale-deed is a valid sale-deed.
(ii) The sale-deed dated 27.3.2003, is a registered document. By reason of the provisions contained in section 113-E of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that the act of registration of the said sale-deed has been regularly performed.
(iii) Photo copy of the sale-deed dated 27.3.2003 has been brought on record. However, the complainant has failed to prove as to how fraud has been played with him in the execution of said sale-deed.
(iv). It is the case of complainant that fraud has been played with him as possession of disputed plot has not yet been handed over to him consequent upon execution of aforementioned sale-deed. Placing reliance upon judgement of Uttarakhand High Court in Puneet Sharma Vs. Sunil V Gupta and Ors, Manu/UC/0435/2023, Court below held that in case subsequent to the registered sale-deed possession of the disputed plot has not yet been handed over to the complainant then remedy lies to the complainant before civil Court.
(v) There is nothing on record to show that complainant has initiated civil proceedings for possession of the land in dispute. However, instead of filing a civil suit for a decree of possession over the land in dispute before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, complainant has filed the present complaint. As such, complainant has tried to give colour to a dispute which is otherwise purely civil in nature by filing a criminal complaint.
14. Court below has referred to Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which reads as under:
" 55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller .?In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold:
(1) The seller is bound?
(a) to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property 3[or in the seller's title thereto] of which the seller is, and the buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover;
(b) to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller's possession or power;
(c) to answer to the best of his information all relevant questions put to him by the buyer in respect to the property or the title thereto;
(d) on payment or tender of the amount due in respect of the price, to execute a proper
conveyance of the property when the buyer tenders it to him for execution at a proper time and place;
(e) between the date of the contract of sale and the delivery of the property, to take as much care of the property and all documents of title relating thereto which are in his possession as an owner of ordinary prudence would take of such property and documents;
(f) to give, on being so required, the buyer, or such person as he directs, such possession of theproperty as its nature admits;
(g) to pay all public charges and rent accrued due in respect of the property up to the date of the sale, the interest on all incumbrances on such property due on such date, and, except where the property is sold subject to incumbrances, to discharge all incumbrances on the property then existing.
(2) The seller shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the interest which the seller professes to transfer to the buyer subsists and that he has power to transfer the same:
Provided that, where the sale is made by a person in a fiduciary character, he shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the seller has done no act whereby the property is incumbered or whereby he is hindered from transferring it.
The benefit of the contract mentioned in this rule shall be annexed to, and shall go with, the interest of the transferee as such, and may be enforced by every person in whom that interest is for the whole or any part thereof from time to time vested.
(3) Where the whole of the purchase-money has been paid to the seller, he is also bound to deliver to the buyer all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller 's possession or power:
Provided that, (a) where the seller retains any part of the property comprised in such documents, he is entitled to retain them all, and, ( b) where the whole of such property is sold to different buyers the buyers, of the lot of greatest value is entitled to such documents. But in case (a) the seller, and in case (b) the buyer, of the lot of greatest value, is bound, upon every reasonable request by the buyer, or by any of the other buyers, as the case may be, and at the cost of the person making the request, to produce the said documents and furnish such true copies thereof or extracts therefrom as he may require; and in the meantime, the seller, or the buyer of the lot of greatest value, as the case may be, shall keep the said documents safe, uncancelled and undefaced, unless prevented from so doing by fire or other inevitable accident.
(4) The seller is entitled?
(a) to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer;
(b) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase-money, to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer, 1[any transferee without consideration or any transferee with notice of the non-payment,] for the amount of the purchase-money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, and for interest on such amount or part 1[from the date on which possession has been delivered].
(5) The buyer is bound?
(a) to disclose to the seller any fact as to the nature or extent of the seller's interest in the property of which the buyer is aware, but of which he has reason to believe that the seller is not aware, and which materially increases the value of such interest;
(b) to pay or tender, at the time and place of completing the sale, the purchase-money to the seller or such person, as he directs: provided that, where the property is sold free from incumbrances, the buyer may retain out of the purchase -money the amount of any incumbrances on the property existing at the date of the sale, and shall pay the amount so retained to the persons entitled thereto;
(c) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer, to bear any loss arising from the destruction, injury or decrease in value of the property not caused by the seller;
(d) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer, as between himself and the seller, to pay all public charges and rent which may become payable in respect of the property, the principal moneys due on any incumbrances subject to which the property is sold, and the interest thereon afterwards accruing due.
(6) The buyer is entitled?
(a) where the ownership of the property has passed to him, to the benefit of any improvement in, or increase in value of, the property, and to the rents and profits thereof;
(b) unless he has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property, to a charge on the property, as against the seller and all persons claiming under him to the extent of the seller's interest in the property, for the amount of any purchase-money properly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the delivery and for interest on such amount; and, when he properly declines to accept the delivery, also for the earnest (if any) and for the costs (if any) awarded to him of a suit to compel specific performance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission.
An omission to make such disclosures as are mentioned in this section, paragraph (1), clause (a), and paragraph (5), clause (a), is fraudulent. "
(vi). Having noted the provisions contained in section 55 of the Transfer of Properties Act, Court then referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Alagammal Vs. Ganesan (2024) 3 SCC 232, wherein the following has been observed in paragraph 23:
"Section 55 (1) of the Transfer of Property act, the seller has aduty to hand over possession at the time of sale- if possession is not handed over, it may constitute a material defect that must be disclosed."
(vii). On the basis of above court below, concluded that in case the transfer of possession has not taken place pursuant to the registered sale-deed then an aggrieved person (vendee) can approach the civil court.
(viii). The complainant has alleged that he has come to learn that accused have executed a subsequent sale-deed of the land in dispute in favour of another person. In support of above, the complainant filed the copy of alleged sale deed. However, as the copy of alleged sale deed is not a certified copy, therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence. Apart from above, no witness was adduced to prove the alleged sale-deed.
(ix). By reason of Section 103 of the Evidence Act, the burden is upon the complainant to prove that a subsequent sale-deed has been executed by accused in favour of other person regarding the land in dispute. However, the said burden has not been discharged.
(x) It was contended by the complainant before Court below that in proceedings before consumer forum, the accused have admitted that possession over the land in dispute has not been handed over to complainant. As such, it was contended on behalf of complainant before court below that on the basis of aforesaid admission, the accused are liable to be convicted by Court below, for the offence complained of.
(xi). In the opinion of court below aforesaid argument raised on behalf of accused is antagonistic to criminal jurisprudence. The accused can be held to be guilty in a criminal trial only when the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
(xii) It has not been established by the complainant and his witnesses as to how the sale-deed dated 27.3.2003 is a fraudulent document. In case the complainant had to pay penalty on account of deficiency of stamps or payment of deficit amount of development charges, the same was pursuant to aforementioned sale-deed. However, simply on the basis of above, no criminality can be attributed against the accused. As such, no offence under section 420 IPC is made out against accused as complainant has failed to prove as to how cheating was committed against him by the accused.
(xiii). The sale-deed in respect of disputed plot is a registered document. However the complainant has not been able to prove as to what forgery has been committed. As such, no offence under section 468 IPC is made out against accused. Complainant has miserably failed to establish the fact that the accused in order to commit fraud have made a forged document.
(xiv). The sale-deed dated 27.3.2003 is a registered document. However, the same has not yet been declared void or illegal by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. No evidence has been led by the complainant to prove as to how by playing fraud or cheating the said document was used as a genuine document. As such, no ofence under section 471 IPC can be said to be made out against accused.
(xv) Complainant has also failed to establish conspiracy on the part of accused in committing the criminal wrong. In view of above, no offence under section 120B IPC can be said to be made out.
(xvi) The complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, they are liable to be acquitted.
(xvii) Since the sale deed is a registered document, therefore, there is a presumption that the same was validly executed. In this regard reliance was placed upon by court below on the judgement of Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others, (2006) 5SCC 353, wherein following has been observed in paragraph 27:-
"there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed- A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption."
15. Thus feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated 26.8.2025, passed by Court below, complainant/appellant has now approached this Court by means of aforementioned criminal appeal.
16. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for complainant/appellant in support of present appeal contends that the impugned judgement passed by Court below is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of the evidence on record has returned a clear and categorical finding that the disputed sale deed is a registered document. Once this finding was returned by Court below, then the execution of sale-deed is admitted to the parties. Therefore, the case of complainant/appellant that though the sale deed was duly executed but the possession of land in dispute has not yet been handed over, was a fact in respect of which the burden to prove to the contrary was upon the accused. However, no evidence was led by the accused to establish before Court below that possession over the land in dispute has already been handed over to the complainant. In view of above, an offence under section 420 IPC is clearly made out as right from the inception, there was clear intention on the part of accused to cheat the complainant.
17. Furthermore, in proceedings before consumer forum the accused had admitted that possession over the land in dispute has not been handed over to the complainant/appellant. In view of above, court below ought to have convicted the accused of the charges framed against them. It was thus contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the impugned judgement is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this court.
18. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A.-I along with Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. representing State/opposite party-1, have vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that impugned judgement passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has neither ignored any vital peace of evidence nor it has misconstrued any evidence on record. As such, no perversity can be attached to the same. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A.-I that conviction on the basis of an admission in another case is antagonistic to criminal jurisprudence. According to the learned A.G.A-I, the only exception to the said rule is when an accused pleads guilty at the stage of framing of charge that he can be convicted of the charges on the basis of same. However, no conviction can be awarded to an accused on the basis of an admission made in other proceedings. By virtue of the provisions contained in section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, the deposition of a witness in an another case can be read in evidence only if the witness whose deposition is sought to be relied upon was cross examined. However, there is nothing on record to show that the admission relied upon by complainant before court below is the outcome of statement-in-chief as well as examination-in-chief of the accused in another case. Court below has recorded clear and cogent reasons for acquitting the accused/opposite party-1. One of the reasons recorded by Court below is that dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute, as complainant is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of accused in not handing over possession of the land in dispute, (subject matter of registered sale-deed dated 23.7.2003) to the complainant. Therefore, by reason of above, remedy lies to complainant/appellant to approach the civil court for claiming possession over the land in dispute. Apart from above, court below upon appraisal and appreciation of the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 has recorded clear findings that no offence under any of the charging sections can be said to be made out against the accused on the basis of the same. The submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgement do not dislodge the said observations/conclusion drawn by the Court below. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the Apex Court in catena of decisions has already held that if a civil dispute is dragged into criminal litigation, the Court should immediately quash the criminal proceedings, as it is an abuse of the process of the Court. In view of above, the aforesaid reasons recorded by Court below for acquitting the accused cannot be said to be illusionary or bereft of logic. Since as per the reasons recorded by Court below in support of impugned judgment coupled with the fact that as per the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, no offence as alleged can be said to be made out against the accused, court below has rightly acquitted the accused opposite party-2 of the charges framed against him. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that present appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
19. At this juncture, we invited the attention of learned counsel for complainant/appellant to the reasons recorded by Court below, which we have already crystalized herein above. After pointing out the said reasons, we further brought to the notice of the learned counsel for appellant, the provisions contained in section 384 Cr.P.C./425 BNSS which provides for summary dismissal of an appeal. We, therefore, also pointed out that since the complete depositions of the three prosecution witnesses who had deposed before, court below have not been brought on record, therefore, there is nothing on record to contradict the narration of depositions of prosecution witnesses occurring in the impugned judgement.
20. In spite of above, the learned counsel for complainant/appellant insisted that since the genesis of the depositions of three prosecution witnesses have been noted by court below in the impugned judgement itself, therefore, he does not wish to file any supplementary affidavit bringing on record the depositions of three prosecution witnesses. He, then reiterated his submissions urged by him in support of present appeal which have already been mentioned above.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for complainant/appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State/oppsoite party-1 and upon evaluation of the impugned judgement including the reasons recorded therein, in the light of depositions of three prosecution witnesses who deposed before court below, this Court finds that following three questions arise for consideration in this appeal.
(i) Whether the inference drawn by Court below on the basis of material on record that dispute between the parties is a purely civil dispute which has been dragged into criminal litigation is legally sustainable.
(ii) Whether the reasons recorded by Court below in support of it's conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt are cogent and valid reasons or illusonary and against the weight of evidence on record, therefore, illegal and perverse or whether court below has misconstrued the depositions of the three prosecution witnesses and therefore erred in law and fact in acquitting the accused of the charges framed against them.
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of accused cannot be sustained on the ground of unexplained delay as admittedly the complaint was filed after expiry of a period of almost 10 years from the date of execution of registered sale deed dated 27.3.2003.
22. There is no denial of the fact that dispute between the parties is regarding the fact that though a registered sale deed dated 23.07.2003 was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant/appellant in respect of certain land but the consequential possession over the said land was not handed over to the complainant/appellant i.e. the vendee. In the case in hand, the execution of registered sale deed by the vendors (accused) in favour of complainant/appellant is admitted to the parties. |There is nothing on record to show that the vendors i.e. the accused had no right to execute sale deed of the land in dispute or the land in dispute could not be sold. There is no allegation that any impersonation has been made or the witnesses to the sale deed were incompetent to witness the contract.
23. A similar issue cropped up before Apex Court in the case of Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P., 2020 (12) SCC 51. However, there is one distinguishing feature in aforementioned case. The complainant therein had instituted a civil suit for redressal of his grievance. However, irrespective of above, Court examined the complaint and the conduct of complainant and ultimately, delineated it's views in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the aforesaid report. Accordingly, the same are extracted herein below;-
"8. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29th December,1993 which was registered on 5th January, 1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd December, 1997. Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is pending in O.S. No. 160 of 2008, only in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner. There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before the competent civil court and it is for the civil court to decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed. When the very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Although, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The sale deed on which basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant was registered on 5th January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even after filing of the suit on 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4 years? delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. Allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the process.
9. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving his case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civil nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of law. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal."
24. Apart from above, the Apex Court has repeatedly held that where a civil dispute is dragged into civil litigation then in such a circumstance, the criminal proceedings should be nipped in the bud. Reference in this regard be made to the following judgements of Supreme Court:
1. Urmila Devi Vs. Balram and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1574
2. State of M.P. Vs. Shilpa Jain, 2024 SCC Online SC 507
3. Sreenivsa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711
4. Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttranchal, 2007 12 SCC 1
25. Court below upon evaluation of the evidence on record as well as the allegation made in the complaint has returned a clear and cogent findings that primarily the dispute is of a civil nature and therefore, remedy lies to the complainant to approach the civil court. To lend legal support to the aforesaid finding, Court below had relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Sachin Garg Vs. State of UP 2024 SCC Online SC 82.
26. We, therefore, examined the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as noted in the impugned judgment, ourselves to find whether any such fact has emerged therein on the basis of which the criminality alleged to have been committed by accused can be said to be proved inspite of due diligence, we could not find any such fact therein on the basis of which, an inference could be drawn by us that the accused is guilty of committing cheating, fraud and forgery against the complainant/appellant. In view of above and the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as noted herein above, no illegality can be attached to the conclusion drawn by Court below that in view of grievance raised by the complainant, remedy lies to the complainant/appellant to approach the competent civil court for redressal of his grievance.
27. So far as the veracity of reasons recorded by Court below to conclude that guilt of accused does not stand established beyond reasonable doubt also cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The findings/reasons returned by Court below are based upon due appraisal of the evidence on record in the light of allegations made in the complaint. Court below has assigned specific reasons for coming to the conclusion that no offence under any of charging Section is made out against accused. Upon examination by us of the said findings in the light of depositions of the prosecution witnesses as noted in the impugned judgment, we could not come across of any such fact on the basis of which, any of the findings qua the charging sections can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous inasmuch as the complainant himself could not prove the factum of cheating, fraud or forgery by the accused against him by his own evidence. As such, the conclusion drawn by Court below that no criminality as alleged to have been committed by the accused/opposite party-2 is borne out from the record is neither illegal nor perverse.
28. Out of abundant caution, we have examined the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. For the sake of repetition, we reproduce the genesis of their depositions in support of our conclusion aforementioned that no offence can be said to be made out as per the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
I. P.W.1, Shankar Singh is the complainant. This witness in his deposition before court below has supported the complaint. He has detailed about the sale deed dated 27.03.2003 and how the consideration in lieu of the sale was made to Vinayak Sahkari Samiti. He has also stated that no civil proceedings have been initiated by him for redressal of grievance raised in the complaint. This witness has further stated that he had approached the Consumer Forum for possession over the land in dispute. However, his complaint was rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the Consumer Forum. However, this witness has not stated any such fact so as to lead to an inference that cheating, fraud or forgery has been committed by the accused against the complainant (Vendee).
II. P.W.2, Mahendra Nath Chaturvey, has stated about the execution of the sale deed by alleging that he was present at the time of execution of the sale deed. He has further stated that he does not personally know the accused i.e. Bhargav Secretary and Bhatnagar.
III. P.W.3, Prabhat Ranjan Yadav, has stated that complainant Shankar Singh is his neighbour. He had also gone to Tehsil at the time of execution of sale deed. He has further stated that the sale deed was executed by Vinod Bhatnagar. The complainant Shankar Singh had signed the sale deed after reading the same. However, he cannot definitely say that possession over the land in dispute is that of Complainant Shankar Singh or not.
29. Even before us, the learned counsel for appellant could not dislodge the reasons rendered by Court below. We however, deem it appropriate to deal with the submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant as noted herien above. The execution of the sale-deed is proved as court below had held that it is a registered document. The only grievance of the complainant/appellant, is that possession of the land sold pursuant to the sale deed has not been handed over. The original sale deed itself was not filed before Court below nor the photocopy of the same filed before Court below was proved in accordance with law. As such, this Court is handicapped to examine the contents of the sale deed. Thus, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the sale deed contained a recital that possession of land in dispute has been handed over to the vendee. In order to establish an offence of forgery under Section 463 IPC, which is punishable under Section 467 IPC, the presence of original document before the Court is necessary. The prosecution must prove the existence of forged document beyond a reasonable doubt, and without original, it is difficult to prove that such a document is a forged document. Merely filing a copy of such forged document does not dispense with the requirement of either production of original document or proving it by producing a certified copy and comparing certified copy with the original document. The original document is primary evidence and its absence means the prosecution has failed to establish the foundation of it's case. By merely producing a copy of forged document, without proving it, cannot itself determine as to whether the original document has been forged or not. The Apex Court in the case of C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) 4 SCC 487, set aside the judgments of conviction by trial Court and High Court, which were based on evidence of handwriting expert, by observing that the original postal cover in which forged mark-sheet was purportedly posted was not exhibited and proved in evidence. When original postal cover not produced, question of same bearing handwriting of accused does not arise. In this case charge upon accused-appellant was that he prepared the postal cover.
30. Admittedly, the registered sale deed was executed by the accused in favour of complainant/appellant on 23.07.2003. It is the case of complainant/appellant that subsequent to the aforementioned sale deed possession over the land which is subject matter of sale deed was not handed over to complainant/appellant. Accordingly, complainant/appellant filed the criminal complaint in the year, 2013. As such, there is a delay of about 10 years in approaching the Court. In spite of the fact that there is a huge delay of 10 years in approaching the Court, no attempt was made by the complainant/appellant to explain the delay in filing the criminal complaint. As such, the delay in filing the criminal complaint remains unexplained.
31. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgments of Supreme Court in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 403, Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 15 SCC 164, Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 2 SCC 176, Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC Online 938, wherein it has been observed that if there is delay in initiating the criminal proceeding and no plausible explanation has come forward from the prosecution explaining the delay in initiating the criminal proceedings then the criminal prosecution of an accused, on the basis of such delayed initiation, cannot be sustained.
32. The Apex Court, in the case of Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (supra), quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the accused therein on the ground that there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the F.I.R.
33. In the case of Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 (3) 791, the Apex Court quashed the conviction and sentence awarded to accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.
34. When the case in hand is examined in the light of above, this Court find that there is a huge delay of 10 years in filing the criminal complaint. No explanation has come forward for explaining the delay in filing criminal complaint. There is no material to show that the vendors were incompetent to execute the sale deed, or the land in dispute itself could not be sold, there is impersonation or the witnesses were not competent to attest the contract of sale. As such, Court below could have rejected the complaint on the ground of delay alone.
35. For the reasons given above, we find that no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the impugned judgement. The provisions of law referred to the impugned judgment and also the judgments of the Apex Court as well as other High Courts relied upon by Court below are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. No perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement as Court below has neither ignored any material peace of evidence nor it has misconstrued any material peace of evidence. The depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, when examined, do not reveal as to how fraud, forgery or cheating has been committed by the accused in executing the sale-deed dated 27.03.2003. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Court below has, therefore, rightly acquitted the accused/opposite party-2 of the charges framed against him.
36. For the reasons given above, present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
37. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
November 3, 2025
Arshad
