State of U.P v. Haidar Sadiq, arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "(i) to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case no. 113691 of 2024, in re: State of U.P. versus Haidar Sadiq, arising out of Case Crime No. 021 of 2021 under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VII, Lucknow. (ii) to quash the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VII, Lucknow criminal case no. 113691 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 021 of 2021 whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this petition. (iii) to quash the charge sheet dated 20.12.2023 in criminal case no. 113691 of 2024 arising out of submitted by the investigating officer whereby the petitioner has been accused under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this petition."

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He submits that in fact the Secretary of the Society has lodged an F.I.R. alleging that on the basis of several agreements, the land pertaining to the Society was sold out in favour of the certain persons and thus the forgery has been committed. He argued that in fact no such forgery has ever been committed as the Society filed a suit bearing Suit No. 203 of 2009 regarding the property in question before the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter an application Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was also instituted, which was settled upto the Board of Revenue. He submits that the matter pertains to the civil dispute, which is being given colour of criminality. He added that after 2014 the first information report has been lodged after passing about 7 years in year 2021, to give a colour of criminality to a civil dispute. He submits that in fact the present first information report is on behest of the Society and there is no criminal intent to commit offence by the applicant. The next submission is that whole proceedings against the applicant is an abuse of process of law.

4. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the law rendered in the following cases:-

1. Mala Choudhary and another Vs. State of Telangana and others; 2025 SCC online SC1474. The relevant paragraph nos. 13, 15 and 21 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "13. We are of the firm opinion that even from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint there was no justification for registering the FIR and rather the complainant should have been instructed to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the civil Court. .. ..

15. We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature. .. ..

21. A cost of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) is imposed on the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants, who are the wife and daughter respectively of a Retd. Army Major General, in a totally false and concocted criminal case.

2. Sailesh Kuamr Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2025 SCC online SC 1462. The relevant paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law.

14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing anything further. If the Respondent No. 4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings."

3. Rikhab Birhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2025 SCC online SC 823. The relevant paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "12. Thereupon, the appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. before the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court, vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2024, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, stating that at that stage, only a prima facie case was to be seen in the light of the law laid down by this Court."

4. Dinesh Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC online SC34 The relevant paragraph nos. 33, 34 and 38 of the said judgment are quoted herein belo: "33. Further, the complainant came to know about the merger of the Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR in the year 2013 itself. However, even after dismissal of the application filed for recall of the merger order passed by the High Court on 15.03.2016, no steps were taken to recover the amount, except getting the FIR registered more than two years later. All these facts clearly reflect upon the ill designs of the complainant.

34. The entire factual matrix and the time lines clearly reflects that the complainant deliberately and unnecessarily has caused substantial delay and had been waiting for opportune moment for initiating false and frivolous litigation. .. .. "38. Before parting with the judgment, we are reminded of the opening remarks. The respondent Karan Gambhir having misused the legal system by lodging false and frivolous complaint with non- disclosure of necessary facts must bear its costs. The registration of FIR at Noida despite having registered offices of companies in question at Delhi shows a wishful forum shopping by the Complainant, casting serious doubts on their bona fides. The Complainant had already sought remedy against amalgamation order before the High Court and the High Court had dismissed the same. However, Complainant chose to again use judicial mechanisms to raise his grievances. A criminal complaint was filed and FIR was registered against appellants despite the commercial nature of dispute. Such ill intended acts of abuse of power and of legal machinery seriously affect the public trust in judicial functioning Thus, we find ourselves constrained to impose cost on Complainant with a view to curb others from such acts leading to abuse of Judicial remedies"

5. Referring the aforesaid he submits that the case of present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgements above-said and thus submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

6. On the other hand learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid but he could not dispute the fact that the matter pertains to a civil dispute which has also been settled by the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate.

7. Prima facie there is force in the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, thus matter requires consideration.

8. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

9. Steps be taken within a week.

10. List this matter in the First Week of September, 2025.

11. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by the learned counsel for thte opposite parties.

12. Till the next date of listing, proceedings against the applicant in criminal case no. 113691 of 2024, in re: State of U.P. versus Haidar Sadiq, arising out of Case Crime No. 021 of 2021 under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VII, Lucknow shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Anuj Singh

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "(i) to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case no. 113691 of 2024, in re: State of U.P. versus Haidar Sadiq, arising out of Case Crime No. 021 of 2021 under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VII, Lucknow. (ii) to quash the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VII, Lucknow criminal case no. 113691 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 021 of 2021 whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this petition. (iii) to quash the charge sheet dated 20.12.2023 in criminal case no. 113691 of 2024 arising out of submitted by the investigating officer whereby the petitioner has been accused under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this petition."

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He submits that in fact the Secretary of the Society has lodged an F.I.R. alleging that on the basis of several agreements, the land pertaining to the Society was sold out in favour of the certain persons and thus the forgery has been committed. He argued that in fact no such forgery has ever been committed as the Society filed a suit bearing Suit No. 203 of 2009 regarding the property in question before the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter an application Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was also instituted, which was settled upto the Board of Revenue. He submits that the matter pertains to the civil dispute, which is being given colour of criminality. He added that after 2014 the first information report has been lodged after passing about 7 years in year 2021, to give a colour of criminality to a civil dispute. He submits that in fact the present first information report is on behest of the Society and there is no criminal intent to commit offence by the applicant. The next submission is that whole proceedings against the applicant is an abuse of process of law.

4. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the law rendered in the following cases:-

1. Mala Choudhary and another Vs. State of Telangana and others; 2025 SCC online SC1474. The relevant paragraph nos. 13, 15 and 21 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "13. We are of the firm opinion that even from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint there was no justification for registering the FIR and rather the complainant should have been instructed to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the civil Court. .. ..

15. We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature. .. ..

21. A cost of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) is imposed on the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants, who are the wife and daughter respectively of a Retd. Army Major General, in a totally false and concocted criminal case.

2. Sailesh Kuamr Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2025 SCC online SC 1462. The relevant paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- "13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law.

14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing anything further. If the Respondent No. 4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings."

3. Rikhab Birhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2025 SCC online SC 823. The relevant paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "12. Thereupon, the appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. before the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court, vide the impugned order dated 09.05.2024, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, stating that at that stage, only a prima facie case was to be seen in the light of the law laid down by this Court."

4. Dinesh Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC online SC34 The relevant paragraph nos. 33, 34 and 38 of the said judgment are quoted herein belo: "33. Further, the complainant came to know about the merger of the Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR in the year 2013 itself. However, even after dismissal of the application filed for recall of the merger order passed by the High Court on 15.03.2016, no steps were taken to recover the amount, except getting the FIR registered more than two years later. All these facts clearly reflect upon the ill designs of the complainant.

34. The entire factual matrix and the time lines clearly reflects that the complainant deliberately and unnecessarily has caused substantial delay and had been waiting for opportune moment for initiating false and frivolous litigation. .. .. "38. Before parting with the judgment, we are reminded of the opening remarks. The respondent Karan Gambhir having misused the legal system by lodging false and frivolous complaint with non- disclosure of necessary facts must bear its costs. The registration of FIR at Noida despite having registered offices of companies in question at Delhi shows a wishful forum shopping by the Complainant, casting serious doubts on their bona fides. The Complainant had already sought remedy against amalgamation order before the High Court and the High Court had dismissed the same. However, Complainant chose to again use judicial mechanisms to raise his grievances. A criminal complaint was filed and FIR was registered against appellants despite the commercial nature of dispute. Such ill intended acts of abuse of power and of legal machinery seriously affect the public trust in judicial functioning Thus, we find ourselves constrained to impose cost on Complainant with a view to curb others from such acts leading to abuse of Judicial remedies"

5. Referring the aforesaid he submits that the case of present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgements above-said and thus submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

6. On the other hand learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid but he could not dispute the fact that the matter pertains to a civil dispute which has also been settled by the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate.

7. Prima facie there is force in the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant, thus matter requires consideration.

8. Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

9. Steps be taken within a week.

10. List this matter in the First Week of September, 2025.

11. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed by the learned counsel for thte opposite parties.

12. Till the next date of listing, proceedings against the applicant in criminal case no. 113691 of 2024, in re: State of U.P. versus Haidar Sadiq, arising out of Case Crime No. 021 of 2021 under sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VII, Lucknow shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Anuj Singh