Allahabad High Court
Smt. Dilshad Bano And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:159201-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19961 of 2025
Smt. Dilshad Bano And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Shravana Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 42
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, Advocate whole Vakalatnama filed today is taken on record and Ms. Divya Ojha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 01.08.2025 registered as Case Crime No.388 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the B.N.S., Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.
3. The FIR impugned herein has been lodged in respect of the Nikahnama dated 28.05.2005. Allegation in the FIR is that one Dilshad Bano along with Badshah, Dilash and Wahid Pahalwan made a forged document on which Dilshad Bano put her signatures and Wahid Pahelwan and Dilash witnessed the document.
4. It is alleged that informant's father late Anisur Rahman @ Bahare Miyan have died on 16.06.2020 in a road accident. After the death of the father of the informant, Dilshad Bano filed an Appeal No.2599 of 2024 (Dilshad Bano vs. Ateek Ahmad) in the court of S.D.M., Atrauli with regard to inherit the property of the informant's father. In that civil appeal, one Mohammad Danish-Imam had filed his affidavit stating that informant's father Late Anisur Rahman @ Bahare Miyan never married with Dilshad Bano and it is also alleged that in Nikahnama signatures of Mohammad. Danish-Imam is forged. Thus, Dilshad Bano and others have played fraud by forging a document and producing the same before the court. Therefore, offences have been committed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Dilshad Bano is legally wedded wife of Anisur Rahman @ Bahare Miyan. He further submits that Dilshad Bano has filed a complaint case on 15.03.2024 against the informant and others and as a counterblast informant has lodged the present FIR against them. He next submits that FIR is only malicious and lodged with ulterior motives just to humiliate and harass the petitioners who have neither committed nor participated in the commission of alleged offences. Being legally wedded wife, Dilshad Bano is entitled to inherit the property. Allegations made in the FIR is of a civil nature and the assertion raised in the FIR can be met out appropriately in civil suit. Submission, therefore, is that civil dispute is being given colour of criminal prosecution and is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submits that informant's father Anisur Rahman @ Bahare Miyan met with an accided on 16.07.2020 and died. He further submits that legally wedded wife of Late Anisur Rahman @ Bahare Miyan was Fatima who died on 28.04.2023. He further submits that with intention to usurp the property of Late Anisur Rehman @ Bahare Miyan petitioners herein have fabricated the document, wherein, they showed Dilshad Bano wife of Anisure Rehman @ Bahare Miya and other petitioners witnessed the document and, thereafter, a Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2024 was filed by Dilshad Bano before the court of S.D.M., Atrauli and the same forged document was also filed therein. He next submits that in that very civil matter, one Mohammad Danish-Imam, has filed affidavit stating that he has never put his signature in the Nikahnama and his signatures are fabricated. He also submits that disputed signatures have been sent to F.S.L. for the examination. He further submits that it is not barred by any law that civil and criminal proceedings with regard to same matter cannot be run concurrently. He next submits that therefore, taking defence of civil dispute by itself would not be sufficient in the present case as the offences as alleged have been clearly made out against the petitioners and in no uncertain terms criminality attached to this act.
7. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the informant.
8. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. Apart from finding force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant, we further find that Mohammad Danish who has shown as Imam, has filed his affidavit before the court of S.D.M., Atrauli, wherein, he has specifically stated that he has not put his signatures in the alleged Nikahnama and his signatures put in the alleged document have been forged. The Investigating Officer has sent the alleged disputed signatures to F.S.L. for examination.
10. We have carefully gone through the first information report, which discloses cognizable offence and is not essentially civil in nature. This Court is of the view that mere pendency of a civil suit by itself is not sufficient to quash the proceedings.
11. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the judgement of Tuphail Ahmad and Others vs. State of U.P. And Others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 209, paragraphs 13 is quoted as under:
"13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not?."
12. This Court has again considered this issue in our judgement in Hussain Zaidi @ Guddu vs State of U.P. and others; 2024(8) ADJ 800 (DB). The relevant paragraph 16 is being quoted as under:
" 16. From the above analysis, it is explicit that settled position of law is that the complaint/FIR disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture but if the dispute is predominantly civil in nature then merely because FIR/complaint attracts ingredients of any criminal offence will not resist the court from quashing the criminal proceeding but in those cases where there are specific allegations of committing forgery and allegations in the FIR/complaint are not predominantly civil in nature but criminal in nature, then there is no bar to continue the criminal proceeding despite the fact that civil proceeding is pending between the parties."
13. In this view of above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs State of Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626, Usha Chakrabotrty vs State of West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. & another vs. State of Kerala reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 and State of Haryana and others vs Bhajan Lal and others; 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Tuphail Ahmad and others vs State of U.P. and others, 2023(12)ADJ 209 and Hussain Zaidi Guddu vs State of U.P. and others; 2024(8) ADJ 800(DB) and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged in the first information report, we find that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a civil dispute is pending and no criminality is attached in the act, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
14. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Vivek Kumar Birla,J.)
September 9, 2025
S.A.
