Badan Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:70591
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6752 of 2005   
 
   Badan Singh And Others    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
R.P. Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Govt. Advocate, N.D. Shukla   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 83
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri N.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No.323 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura pending before the Court of IVth A.C.J.M. Mathura.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party No. 2, Surendra Pal Singh, lodged an FIR under Case Crime No. 130-A of 2004, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of the I.P.C., against the applicants and other named accused persons, stating therein that his father, Girdhar Singh, was the recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 14, area 3.925 hectares, and Khasra No. 18, area 0.525 hectares, having a total area of 4.450 hectares, situated in Mauza Kosikund, Tehsil and District Mathura. It was alleged that the applicants are members of a gang of land mafia and with the intention to grab the said property, they dishonestly executed a forged sale deed dated 16.03.2004 in the name of his father through an impostor. It was further stated that on the basis of the alleged forged sale deed, the applicants tried to get their names mutated in the revenue records and also filed a civil suit before the civil court to grab the said property. Thus, it was alleged that with regard to the ancestral property of opposite party No. 2, the applicants got a forged sale deed executed through an impostor. On the basis of this information, the FIR was lodged and after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent court, which took cognizance and summoned the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are bona fide purchasers of the said property through a registered sale deed executed by one Girwar, who was identified by Bijendra Singh, the real brother of Surendra Singh. It is further submitted that after the execution of the said sale deed, applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed Civil Suit No. 285 of 2004 for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the Trial Court issued notice, against which a revision was filed by the applicants no.2,3 and 4 before the District Judge, who also refused to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Thereafter, the applicants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35414 of 2004 before this Court and this Court directed the Trial Court to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order. Till the matter of temporary injunction is finally decided, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 did not get any relief from this Court and, therefore, after more than nine months, he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon the aforesaid criminal case was registered. It is next submitted that the applicants had also filed a writ petition before this Court, and this Court stayed the arrest of the applicants in Writ Petition No. 651 of 2005. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and can be decided only by the Civil Court. Lastly, it is submitted that opposite party No.2, along with four others, had murdered his own father, Girdhar Singh, in connection with that an application for initiation of criminal proceedings had already been moved.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has next submitted that during the pendency of the civil suit, both the parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, the aforesaid suit has been dismissed. A copy of the compromise application has been filed by way of a supplementary affidavit and it has been stated that, in view of the compromise between the parties, the pendency of the present case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the applicants, in collusion with others, got a forged sale deed executed with respect to the property of the father of opposite party No. 2 through an impostor. It is further submitted that in the compromise entered in the civil suit, the applicants had admitted that the said sale deed had been executed by way of cheating and forgery. It is further submitted that the dispute is not purely civil in nature and that the facts of the case disclose the commission of a criminal offence as well. Therefore, the mere pendency of the civil suit or the compromise arrived at therein would not bar the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants.

7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied upon the case laws reported in AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 2402; International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and Others vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. and Another; 2009 AIR SCW 5341; Shri Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Smt. Daya Sapra; and AIR 2008 SC 1884; P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu.

8. A perusal of the above judgments shows that, so far as the law regarding the maintainability of criminal prosecution in matters which also disclose civil liability is concerned, it is well settled that in many disputes the facts and circumstances are such that the matter gives rise to both civil and criminal liabilities. Criminal prosecution and proceedings relating to civil liability against the same accused are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, a complaint or criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to be quashed at the very threshold merely because the controversy in question also has a civil complexion. It is also a well-settled principle that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not for the High Court to appreciate the evidence or examine its truthfulness or sufficiency, inasmuch as that is the function of the Trial Court. It is equally well settled that, in a given case, civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously.

9. In view of the submissions of both parties as well as material available on record, it is not in dispute that the FIR was lodged against the applicants alleging that a forged and fabricated sale deed of the first informant's father, Girdhar Singh, relating to agricultural land, was executed by setting up a fictitious person. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants. It is alleged on behalf of the applicants that they are bona fide purchasers and dispute is essentially civil in nature. A civil suit was filed, which was dismissed on the basis of a compromise, therefore, pendency of the present criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Opposite party no. 2 has objected to this and submitted that the compromise filed in the civil proceedings shows that the applicants had admitted that the said sale deed was executed by committing fraud and forgery. In this regard, opposite party no. 2 has filed a copy of the compromise by way of a supplementary counter affidavit. A perusal of the same shows that the plaintiffs in the said case, who are the applicants in the present proceedings, have stated that the sale deed executed in their favour, as well as in favour of proforma defendant, is a forged document, which is void and they have no right over the disputed property.

10. It is also averred that a criminal case is pending against those who have committed cheating and executed a forged sale deed. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that charge-sheet has been filed in the above case against the applicants. It is alleged by the first informant that the applicants got a forged sale deed of the first informant's father executed by setting up a fake person. It is a matter of trial which can be adjudicated by the Court after the evidence of both parties is led. At this stage, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence, as it would amount to a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. The role of the present applicants is to be examined at the stage of trial. The contents of the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

11. So far as the argument of the applicants that the dispute is essentially civil in nature is concerned, looking to the facts of the case, the alleged act involves both civil and criminal liability, in view of the judgments cited above by opposite party No. 2.

12. In view of the above, this is not a fit case to exercise inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this application has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

April 2, 2026

Amit