Allahabad High Court
Haji Abdul Waheed And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189068
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32434 of 2025
Haji Abdul Waheed And 10 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ambreen Masroor, Mahtab Alam, Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Anand Prakash Srivastava, G.A., Rajiv Gaur
Reserved on 10.10.2025
Delivered on 29.10.2025
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Prayer
2. Present application has been preferred with following prayer:
"... to quash the criminal proceedings of Case no. 32812/2025 (State vs. Abdul Waheed and others) under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Bhelupur, District Varanasi in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 23.1.2025 submitted in Case Crime no. 299/2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Bhelupur, District Varanasi pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Varanasi and summoning order dated 4.7.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Varanasi in Case no. 32812 of 2025."
Submission on behalf of Applicants
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that forefathers of applicants had formed a registered society in the year 1977-78 namely Anjuman Taraqqi Ahle Sunnat and they had also established the Institution for imparting education and few rooms and hall which were given for marriage ceremony purpose. Applicant no. 1 is the President while the applicant no. 4 is the General Secretary. There are 17 members in the Managing Body and 106 members in the General Body of the Society including the name of the applicant no. 1 at serial no. 47 and name of applicant no. 4 at serial no. 66 in the list of the General Body of the Society.
4. Applicants' aforesaid society was registered under the Societies Registration Act vide registration no. 2918/1977-78 on 17.1.1978 and last renewal of it was made on 17.1.2021 under Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act for a period of 5 years. The election of Management Committee of the Society was held on 25.11.2021 in which applicant no. 1 was elected as President while applicant no. 4 was elected as General Secretary. On dated 18.12.2023, applicant no. 4 had submitted an application containing the election of the Committee of the Management etc. for the registration of the Committee of the Society for the year 2023-24 before the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi. Opposite party no. 2 also filed his objection on 25.4.2024 and submitted its only list and had denied of the claim of the applicants and alleged that the said documents contain forged signatures. The Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2025 had rejected the representation of the applicant no. 4. Applicant no. 4 had challenged the order dated 5.4.2025 by filing statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi which is still pending. When opposite party no. 2 and other persons tried to take possession forcibly of the Institution in question, then the applicant no. 5 had filed Civil Suit no. 1035 of 2024 against the opposite party no. 2 and others in court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi on dated 26.4.2024 wherein, learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 26.4.2024 granted injunction in favour of the applicant no.5.
5. Opposite party no. 2 also filed a Civil Suit no. 446 of 2025 in court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi wherein learned Civil Judge, passed an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo over the property in question. Opposite party no. 2 lodged present FIR against the applicants on dated 21.7.2024 at Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi bearing Case Crime no. 299 of 2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, alleging therein that applicants have fraudulently making forged signatures of opposite party no. 2 have taken possession of the property pertaining to aforesaid Society and are conducting illegal activities from the premises of the property of Society. Applicants being aggrieved with the FIR filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition nos. 13575 of 2024 and 13782 of 2024 wherein Division Bench of this Court stayed the arrest of the applicants vide order dated 20.9.2024.
6. After conclusion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the applicants before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2 Varanasi who took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide impugned order dated 4.7.2025.
7. Learned counsel for applicants contended that applicants had been managing the affairs of the Institution in question since long and the opposite party no. 2 has no concern at all with it. Entire case hinges on the allegation that applicants had made forged signatures in certain documents which has not been proved by any legal evidence except bald allegations made in the FIR. Essential evidence regarding forgery is completely lacking and no offence under sections 467, 468, 471 IPC is made out and therefore continuation of the proceedings against the applicants is illegal and abuse of process of law. Matter is of civil in nature with regard to members of the Committee of Management of the Society as well as dispute with regard to land of the society which is already subjudice before learned civil court. Learned counsel for applicants' relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 (11) SCC 687, that the matter pertains to commercial dispute which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the Penal Code certain words of phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and quash the criminal complaint as well as the summoning order challenged therein.
8. Learned counsel for applicants also relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Naresh Kumar and another vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 268, wherein it has been held that if a dispute is essentially of civil in nature is given a cloak of criminal offence, in such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is in fact, adopted as happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of Court.
9. It is next submitted that in case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013 (11) SCC 673, Hon'ble Apex Court held 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 civil nature.
10. Lastly, it has been submitted that present matter is civil in nature with respect to which a statutory appeal and two civil suits are pending before court concerned, hence proceeding initiated in pursuance to Case Crime no. 299 of 2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Submission on behalf of Opposite party no. 2
11. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/informant rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicants and submitted that opposite party no. 2 is registered society namely Anjuman Taraqqi Ahle Sunnat having registration no. I-40820 of 1977-78. An application was preferred by President/General Secretary of the Institution namely Mahmood Jamal/opposite party no. 2 on 15.11.2023 before Commissioner of Police, Varanasi mentioning therein that in the aforesaid Society some unlawful activities are going on. On dated 11.3.2024 opposite party no. 2 again preferred an application before Commissioner of Police, Varanasi mentioning therein that applicants and their Managing Committee are organizing marriage ceremonies, festivity and social gatherings and procession over the land under the building of the Society. The Police Commissioner, sent a letter to the Joint Director, Public Prosecution to obtain a legal opinion whether the functions of the Managing Committee of the Society be registered for offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. On dated 24.6.2024, Additional Joint Director Public Prosecution Varanasi sought legal opinion and report from District Government Counsel (Criminal) Varanasi and thereafter the present FIR bearing Case Crime no. 299 of 2024 has been registered against the applicants.
12. The FIR has been lodged with the specific allegation of manufacturing forged documents by playing fraud and mischief making forged signatures of existing President Mahmood Jamal, Secretary/opposite party no. 2 and other officials, who were elected in the year 2021-22 in the duly elections held. The working Management Committee presided by Mahmood Jamal/opposite party no. 2 was approved and registered by Registrar Society for five years granting renewal of the Society upto 2026. This statement of fact has not been disputed rather admitted by accused persons while preferring claim of registration of society on the basis of forged documents prepared by them.
13. After registration of FIR, investigation initiated and during investigation, 6 accused persons have filed affidavit before Registrar Society stating that forged documents were prepared by applicant no. 1 namely Abdul Waheed and their names have been included without their consent and information. The Investigating Officer has exonerated aforesaid 6 persons, who have given their affidavit to the Investigating Officer which is part of charge sheet and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants on 23.1.2025.
14. The Registrar Society has rejected the claim of the applicants on the ground that accused persons are not members of society and no documents relating to their membership with particular of proceedings dated 25.11.2021 was produced, however, since the committee of informant right from 1994-1995 to 2017-2018, 2022-2023 got registration undisputedly which continued till 2026. Copy of order passed by Registrar dated 5.4.2025 is annexed as Annexure no. 16 to the application.
15. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 next submitted that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously. Criminal proceedings are to be given primacy or preference, over civil proceedings. Merely because, civil proceedings are pending, criminal proceedings cannot be set aside and quashed. In support of his submission, he relied upon following judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court: 1. P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayanan @ Hari Babu reported in 2008 (72) ALR 171 (SC), 2. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Angustine Imam and another vs. State (Delhi Administration and another) reported in 2009 (5) SCC 528, 3. M.S.Sheriff and P.C. Damodar Nair vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1954 SC 397, 4. Kamal Devi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2001 SC 3846, 5. M. Krishnaan vs. Vijay Singh and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 3014, 6. Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Daya Sapra reported in 2009 (4) AWC 3405, 7. Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 3499;
and following judgments rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court: 8. Tapas Adhikri and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2009 (5) ADJ 649, 9. Sharad Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and other passed in Criminal Misc. Application no. 35595 of 2019 decided on 25.9.2019.
16. Learned counsel also submitted that the fact in dispute raised under defence is purely subject matter of trial. The material prosecution evidences can only by examined and scrutinized by the trial court during trial proceeding in accordance with law. The testimony of witnesses, whether it is trustworthy or not can only be determined after examination of witnesses when they will stand in witness box and cross examined. The merits of the allegations at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not considerable as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The High Court is not required to enter into and consider the merit of the allegations in detail which as such are required to be considered at the time of trial. Reliance in this regard is hereby placed over the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in following cases: 1. Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104, 2. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191, 3. CBI vs. Arvind Khanna reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686.
17. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that no interference is required in the present proceedings initiated against the applicants in shape of Case Crime no. 299 of 2024.
Observation and Conclusion
18. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties which includes the submission of the learned AGA who supported the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of First Information Report registered at Case Crime no. 299 of 2024, one thing is crystal clear that original controversy relates to the dispute arising out of Committee of Management which is still pending to be finally adjudicated at the level of appeal pending before learned Commissioner, Varanasi Division, District Varanasi and Civil Suit no. 1035 of 2024 preferred by the applicants is also pending wherein, opposite party no. 2 is one of the defendants and it is also admitted by both the parties that an ad interim injunction has already been extended in favour of the applicants through which opposite party no. 2 has been restrained from taking forceful possession over the property in dispute.
19. The grounds taken up by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that the FIR has been registered after due consideration of opinion sought through District Government Counsel (Criminal) Varanasi by the concerned Additional Joint Director Public Prosecution, Varanasi wherein these aspects has not been considered but in spite of the same, after submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned. The controversy raised through the criminal proceedings has to be given litmus in reference of the latest judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein dispute is arising out of civil in nature but the same has been given criminal color, recent Hon'ble Apex Court ruling emphasizes that while criminal proceedings cannot be approved to settle civil dispute, quashing them depends on whether there is an overwhelming element of criminality. The Court has quashed cases where disputes were essentially, even if cloaked in criminal allegations like cheating or breach of trust. It clarified that an existing civil remedy does not automatically prevent present criminal proceedings but the criminal complaint must demonstrate an overwhelming element of criminality to proceed. It has been held in case of S.N.Vijaylakshmi vs. State of Karnataka decided on 31.7.2025 reported in INSC 917 wherein, it has been settled that the issue that emerges is as to whether the criminal cases against the appellants should proceed, it is to be examined from two angles. Firstly, as to whether any criminal offence in the background of factual position is made out to justify criminal proceedings against the applicants? Secondly, whether on the same cause of action, based on the afore noted facts, both the civil and criminal proceedings can simultaneously go on?
20. On the first question, the admitted position is that the applicants have possession over the subject property and the same has been protected by learned civil court by way of granting an ad interim injunction in favour of the applicants. So far as relating to second aspect is concerned, whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same persons, the answer stricto sensu is that there is bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, civil case can co-exist with criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed by both the parties ipso facto is not sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, if having a civil flavour to them must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality in the absence of element of criminality if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue it will definitely amount to abuse of process of Court which the Court have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. And the same dictum has been pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in 2013 (11) SCC 673.
21. The same analogy has been drawn by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (2023 INSC 86) while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings raised thereon, it was observed that factual position thus would reveal that the genesis has also the basis of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involve is essentially of civil nature. In the above view, which has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court, interference of this Court to the impugned proceeding of Case no. 32812 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 299 of 2024 is necessitated as the ingredients of the offences apropos which cognizance was taken by learned concerned court are not made out. The dicta pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 (Supplementary 1) SCC 335, Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293 and Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka reported in SCC Online SC 603 also impel this Court to intervene.
22. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid Case no. 32812/2025 (State vs. Abdul Waheed and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 299/2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Bhelupur, District Varanasi which includes charge sheet dated 23.1.2025, cognizance order dated 4.7.2025 stands quashed qua the applicants namely Haji Abdul Waheed, Haji Abdul Raheem, Haji Zaheer Abbas, Ahmad Makki, Abdul Waheed, Shamim Akhtar, Mohammad Kamil, Mohd. Kaleem, Shamim Ahmad, Aasim Rehan and Mohammad Saleem Shahzad.
23. The instant application stands allowed. Costs made easy.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
October 29, 2025
Shaswat
