Indresh Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand& Another

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 16.02.2020 and summoning order dated 12.03.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 410 of 2020, State v. Indresh Kumar Tyagi & Others, arising from Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, registered at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC.

The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, Anju Lata Tyagi, the former wife of the applicant. She alleged that she had purchased property bearing Khasra No. 151m at Mohalla Hazari Bagh, Kankhal, Haridwar, through a registered sale deed dated 23.03.2005, and had been in uninterrupted possession since. Following marital discord, she relocated to Indore with her daughter, while the applicant, Indresh Kumar Tyagi, continued residing at the disputed property. Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2021-----Indresh Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. Upon returning to Haridwar on 22.02.2019, the complainant discovered that the property had allegedly been sold without her consent to Smt. Laxmi Bisht through a fraudulently executed sale deed. Although the FIR named Uttam Bisht, Shubham Bisht, and Sanjay Bisht, their names were dropped during the investigation, and they were listed as prosecution witnesses. The applicant and one Umesh Kumar were charge-sheeted for conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

4. According to the investigation, the applicant and co-accused Umesh Kumar, despite being aware that the property belonged to the complainant, allegedly conspired to execute a false sale deed in favour of Smt. Laxmi Bisht. Statements under Section 161 CrPC of the complainant, Revenue Sub-Inspector, and the purported purchaser were recorded and are said to support the prosecution’s case.

5. Subsequently, Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar, cognisance of the offences and summoned the applicant vide order dated 12.03.2020.

6. It is contended on behalf of theapplicant, Indresh Kumar Tyagi, that he has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 143 of 2019 and asserts that the proceedings constitute an abuse of process.

7. It is urged that the applicant was not named in the FIR, and his subsequent implication is a belated afterthought lacking a factual basis.

8. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the matter pertains to a civil dispute over ownership and possession of immovable property, now given a criminal colour. The applicant refers to Civil Suit No. 122 of 2007, decreed on 19.07.2016, restraining the complainant from dispossessing him without due process, thereby affirming his possession through a valid judicial order. The FIR is alleged to be a retaliatory move arising from past matrimonial discord.

9. It is further submitted that the complainant remained away from the property for several years and raised no contemporaneous objection Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2021-----Indresh Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J. at the time of the sale deed’s execution. The FIR, lodged in May 2019, relates to a transaction in January 2019, and the delay remains unexplained.

10. The applicant highlights that he was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on 15.06.2020 and contends the ongoing prosecution amounts to undue harassment. Notably, the three persons initially named in the FIR were exonerated and are now prosecution witnesses. At the same time, the applicant, unnamed in the FIR and not attributed any specific role, has alone been charge-sheeted.

11. It is argued that the charge-sheet is vague and fails to assign any specific or overt act to the applicant. No credible or independent evidence has been presented to support the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, or 120-B IPC. The investigation appears one-sided, allegedly driven by personal animus.

12. Lastly, it is submitted that the cognisance order dated 12.03.2020 was passed mechanically, without judicial application of mind to the contradictions in the prosecution case or the absence of direct evidence. The applicant, therefore, seeks quashing of the proceedings in the interest of justice.

13. The application is opposed by both the State and Respondent No. 2, the complainant. They contend that the allegations in the FIR, the investigation conducted, and the material collected disclose the commission of cognisable offences by the applicant and co-accused Umesh Kumar.

14. It is submitted that the applicant, the complainant’s former husband, conspired with Umesh Kumar to fraudulently execute a sale deed dated 07.01.2019 in favour of Smt. Laxmi Bisht, concerning property that was exclusively owned and possessed by the complainant. The property had been purchased by her in 2005 through a registered deed and remained her exclusive estate post-divorce in 2009. She Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2021-----Indresh Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J. discovered the alleged fraud upon returning to Haridwar in February 2019 and promptly lodged the FIR.

15. The respondents assert that the issue is not merely a civil dispute over title or possession, but one involving deliberate misrepresentation and unauthorised alienation of the complainant’s property. Despite having no ownership rights, the applicant allegedly misled the purchaser and misappropriated the sale proceeds.

16. The State maintains that a thorough investigation was carried out. Statements of the complainant, Revenue Sub-Inspector, the purchaser, and her husband were recorded under Section 161 CrPC and corroborate the prosecution’s case. Based on these and accompanying documents, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant and Umesh Kumar. The other named persons were found to have been deceived and were accordingly listed as prosecution witnesses.

17. It is further argued that the allegations involve serious charges of conspiracy, cheating, and forgery—offences carrying specific penal consequences under the IPC. The applicant’s earlier civil litigation with the complainant does not bar criminal prosecution, especially where independent acts of fraud and deceit are alleged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that civil disputes may give rise to criminal liability where fraudulent intent is evident.

18. The respondents maintain the Magistrate, after due consideration of the case diary and charge-sheet, found sufficient grounds to take cognisance. The order dated 12.03.2020 is said to reflect due application of mind and does not suffer from legal infirmity. It is also submitted that the applicant has an alternate remedy of seeking discharge before the trial court. Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to pre-empt trial by assessing evidence or witness credibility.

19. Accordingly, it is urged that the application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2021-----Indresh Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J.

21. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The power vested in this Court under Section 482 CrPC is wide but not unrestrained. It exists to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, and must be exercised sparingly, with caution and only in exceptional cases. The present matter does not, in the opinion of this Court, present such a case.

22. The central allegation is that the applicant, post-divorce, colluded with another to execute a fraudulent sale deed concerning property claimed exclusively by the complainant. According to the FIR, the complainant discovered the alleged fraud only upon returning to Haridwar, when she found a third party occupying the premises. These core allegations, taken at face value, do not appear inherently improbable or mala fide.

23. The applicant’s non-mention in the FIR does not vitiate the proceedings. His name surfaced during the investigation, based on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC from the complainant, Revenue Sub-Inspector, purchaser, and others. The charge sheet was filed against him and a co-accused. At the same time, the named initially individuals were dropped and cited as witnesses—an investigative outcome well within the scope of Section 173 CrPC.

24. The applicant’s attempt to frame the dispute as purely civil cannot, by itself, justify quashing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held—including in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522—that the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose offences like cheating or forgery. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds is a matter for trial, not for determination under Section 482 CrPC.

25. The complaint alleges deception, concealment, and wrongful alienation of property through a forged instrument—serious charges Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2021-----Indresh Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 5 Ashish Naithani J. supported, at least prima facie, by material gathered during the investigation. The charge-sheet contains substance, and the cognisance order reflects due consideration of the case diary and supporting documents. It cannot be termed mechanical or devoid of judicial application.

26. This Court does not sit in appeal over the investigating agency’s conclusions, nor is it appropriate to evaluate witness credibility or weigh evidence at this stage. Such matters fall within the trial court’s domain. Pre-trial interference would disrupt the statutory process and prejudge the case.

27. In view of the allegations, supporting material, and the nature of the dispute, this Court finds no exceptional circumstance warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The application is meritless. ORDER For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed. Dated:16.05.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani, J.) Criminal Misc. Application No.95 of 2021-----Indresh Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 6 Ashish Naithani J.