Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 23 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6560
Reserved on 18.07.2025
Delivered on 23.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1637 of 2016
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Anil Pandi and Another ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal along with Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Akshay
Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for respondent
no.2/complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
2. The present application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.')
has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of
the FIR being Case Crime No. 126 of 1998 (later
renumbered as Case Crime No. 1944 of 2006),
registered at Police Station Mussoorie, District
Dehradun, under Sections 420, 467, 466, 468, 471,
and 120-B I.P.C., which is presently pending before
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
3. Brief facts, as emerging from the record,
are that Mr. Surya Kumar Puri, in memory of his late
2025:UHC:6560
wife Smt. Pushpa Puri, proposed to establish a
charitable trust for public welfare. He prepared and
executed a Trust Deed dated 10.04.1993, wherein
he was the Managing Trustee and included eight
close friends and associates as settlers. The
applicants herein were attesting witnesses to the
said Trust Deed. The Trust was duly registered with
the Sub-Registrar, Mussoorie, on 29.04.1993. Mr.
Surya Kumar Puri passed away on 14.05.1993.
After his death, meetings of the Trust were held,
and as per the terms of the Trust Deed, the estate
of Late Mr. Surya Kumar Puri comprising certain
immovable properties and monetary assets was
intended to be transferred to the Trust corpus.
However, one Mr. Suresh Kumar Puri, nephew of the
deceased, filed a probate petition asserting a Will
dated 27.06.1986 purportedly executed by Mr.
Surya Kumar Puri in his favour. To secure legal
validation of the Trust's claim, the Trustees filed
Probate Case No. 410 of 1993 before the District
Judge, Dehradun, for grant of probate in terms of
the Trust Deed. On legal advice that probate could
not be granted to the Trust as it was not an
2025:UHC:6560
executor under the Indian Succession Act, the
petition was withdrawn, and a fresh Petition No. 141
of 1995 for Letters of Administration was filed by
the settlers.
4. Mr. Suresh Kumar Puri contested the said
petition, and both proceedings one filed by him for
probate of the 1986 Will, and the other by the Trust
were consolidated and tried together. During the
pendency of the said testamentary litigation, Mr.
Suresh Kumar Puri filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 28.05.1998, alleging
forgery in the Trust Deed dated 10.04.1993. On this
basis, FIR No. 126/1998 was registered alleging
tampering and addition of two lines in the third
paragraph of the Trust Deed with the alleged
collusion of employee of office of Sub-Registrar.
Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the
Investigating Officer, and the Magistrate took
cognizance and framed charges on 10.06.2008. The
applicants challenged the framing of charges
through criminal revisions, which were allowed by
the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
2025:UHC:6560
25.10.2008, discharging the accused.
5. The aforesaid order dated 25.10.2008 was
challenged by the complainant and the State
through revisions and Government Appeal, which
were heard jointly by this Court and disposed of
vide judgment dated 09.09.2011, setting aside the
discharge and restoring the charges. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court also upheld the said order on
15.04.2013, directing trial to proceed. Meanwhile,
the testamentary proceedings concluded. After
detailed evidence, the Probate Court vide its final
judgment dated 27.04.2016 granted Letters of
Administration in favour of the Trust, holding the
Trust Deed dated 10.04.1993 to be genuine.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that since the testamentary court has
already adjudicated upon the genuineness of the
Trust Deed, the basis of the criminal case stands
negated. He further argues that the applicants,
being only attesting witnesses, cannot be made
accused for forgery and that the criminal case is a
misuse of process to harass the applicants. He
2025:UHC:6560
would further submit that the criminal case stems
from a civil dispute and should have been confined
to the testamentary proceedings. Moreover, the role
of an attesting witness in such a document is
limited and does not attract criminal liability unless
specific overt acts are alleged.
7. Learned State counsel would vehemently
oppose the application, submitting that the Trust
Deed was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
and as per the FSL report, interpolations were found
on the first page. It is stated that the applicants
were summoned by the trial court after appreciation
of material and therefore no interference is
warranted at this stage.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2/complainant would submit that the
applicants have not approached this Court with
clean hands. It is contended that the applicants
deliberately suppressed two crucial facts firstly that
the order framing of charges was upheld by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.04.2013 and secondly
that the probate order dated 27.04.2016 was
2025:UHC:6560
stayed in appeal on 07.06.2016, much before filing
of this application.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would
further submit that the pendency or outcome of civil
or testamentary proceedings does not bar
continuation of criminal proceedings, especially
when a prima facie case exists. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment
passed in the case of Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S.
Reddy & Others, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1428,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due
to pendency of parallel civil proceedings.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
11. It is a settled legal principle that the mere
pendency of inheritance or civil disputes cannot be
a ground to quash criminal proceedings arising out
of cognizable offences.
12. In the case of Md. Allauddin Khan v.
State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 107, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that mere pendency
2025:UHC:6560
of a civil suit is not a ground to quash the criminal
case. In this matter, the Patna High Court had
quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323
and 379 IPC due to a pending landlord-tenant
dispute. The Apex Court reversed, holding that the
existence of a civil dispute does not negate the
allegations in a criminal complaint.
13. In the case of M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere
pendency of a civil suit does not bar the initiation or
continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of
the same set of facts. The Court emphasized that
particularly at the stage of FIR or framing of charge,
if a prima facie case for criminal prosecution is
made out, the proceedings should not be quashed
merely because parallel civil litigation is pending.
The Court further observed that the existence of
civil remedies does not preclude criminal liability
where elements of a cognizable offence are present
14. This Court finds that the applicants failed
2025:UHC:6560
to disclose the fact that the framing of charges has
been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
order granting probate has already been stayed in
appeal. In the counter affidavit of the Investigating
Officer would reveal that the FSL report prima facie
supports the allegations of tampering in the alleged
Trust Deed. The pendency of inheritance or civil
proceedings does not provide grounds to quash
criminal cases. It is admitted that the order of
framing of charges have been upheld upto the
Hon'ble Apex Court and further for the fact that the
applicant has not approached this Hon'ble Court
with clean hands had have concealed material facts
and have not disclosed prior legal proceedings.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a plethora
of judgments, has consistently held that a person
who conceals or suppresses material facts is not
entitled to any relief. It is well settled that a person
approaching the court must come with clean hands,
and any attempt to mislead the court not only
disentitles such a person from relief but also
renders him liable for action, including contempt.
2025:UHC:6560
17. In the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of
Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court strongly criticized the act of hiding important
facts from the court. The Court observed that
misleading the court is equal to committing fraud
and anyone who uses fraud harms the justice
system, and such actions must be strictly punished
to prevent them from happening again and to
protect the integrity of the judicial process.
18. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of
India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that hiding or concealing
important facts is not a part of genuine legal
argument it amounts to misleading and
misrepresenting the court. The Court also stated
that it has the power to dismiss such petitions to
stop misuse of the legal process.
19. In the case of Dalip Singh v. State of
U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that there is a growing number of
litigants who lie and behave unethically in court.
The Court clearly stated that if someone tries to
2025:UHC:6560
misuse the justice system or comes to the court
with dishonest intentions, they do not deserve any
help or relief from the court.
20. In another judgment of Moti Lal Songara
v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu, (2013) 9 SCC 199,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that hiding
important facts from the court is like committing
fraud. The Latin phrase "Suppressio veri, expressio
falsi" was used, which means hiding the truth is the
same as telling a lie.
21. In the case of K. Jayaram & Others vs.
Bangalore Development Authority, (2022) 12
SCC 815, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
anyone approaching the writ court must come with
clean hands and disclose all relevant facts. The
Court further observed that if a person hides or
suppresses important information to gain an unfair
advantage, it amounts to fraud on the court and the
other party.
22. Since the order framing charges against
the applicant has been upheld up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and considering further that the
applicant has not approached this Court with clean
2025:UHC:6560
hands, having suppressed material facts and failed
to disclose prior legal proceedings before Court,
thus, this Court finds the conduct of the applicant to
be lacking in bona fides.
23. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of
the considered opinion that no ground is made out
for invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present application,
being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 23.07.2025.
Mamta
