High Court · 2025

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assist ed by Mr. Vinay Bhat t , learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deput y A.G. along wit h Mr. Akshay Lat wal, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e. 3. No no.2 This applicat ion under Sect ion 482 4. Cr.P.C. has been filed by t he applicant t he cognizance/ seeking quashing of sum m oning order dat ed 26.07.2016 passed by t he learned Addit ional Chief Judicial Magist rat e, 2nd Dehradun, in a com plaint case under Sect ions 420, 467, 468, 120- B I PC, as well as t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 31.07.2017 passed by t he learned Addit ional Sessions Judge, 5 t h Dehradun in Crim inal Revision No. 258 of 2016, whereby t he revision preferred by t he applicant was dism issed. t he 5. applicant would subm it t hat one Sm t . Prem wat i W/ o Nand Kishore sold her land t o Sm t . Parwat i Devi t hrough a regist ered sale deed dat ed 17.10.1979; t hat , Sm t . Parwat i Devi execut ed a sale deed in favour of t he present applicant on 29.05.1991; t hat , a supplem ent ary sale deed was t hereaft er execut ed by Sm t . Parwat i Devi on 06.08.1991; t hat , t he legal heirs of Sm t . Parwat i Devi execut ed anot her supplem ent ary 20.10.2003 in favour of t he applicant . Learned senior counsel would furt her 6. subm it t hat t he wife of t he applicant had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 461 of 2001, Learned senior counsel t he t hat t hat , which was pending adj udicat ion; during t he pendency of t hat suit , t he respondent no.2 filed a crim inal com plaint against t he applicant wit h t he int ent ion t o exert pressure; t hat , init ially, vide order dat ed 28.04.2007, t he learned Magist rat e t ook cognizance against several persons; t hat , subsequent ly, on an applicat ion under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. m oved by t he respondent no.2, t he learned Magist rat e passed dat ed im pugned 26.07.2016, sum m oning t he applicant . Learned Senior Counsel would 7. furt her subm it t he supplem ent ary deeds m erely correct ed t he boundaries and area of Khasra No. 689 as per act ual possession and t here was no change in Khasra No. 659; t hat , t he propert y of respondent no.2 ( Khasra No. 658) had already been sold and recorded in t he revenue records on 15.02.2008; hence, he suffered no loss or prej udice; t hat , no filed by respondent no.2 for cancellat ion of t he supplem ent ary/ corrigendum deeds. Learned St at e counsel would subm it 8. t hat court , aft er t rial considering t he m at erial on record, right ly issued sum m ons under Sect ions 120- B, 420, 467 & 468 I PC; t hat , t he learned revisional court , on proper appreciat ion of t he evidence and law, has affirm ed t he int erference is warrant ed. 9. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he m at erial available on record. I t is adm it t ed t hat respondent no.2 10. has not t he supplem ent ary/ corrigendum sale deeds m ade t he applicant , t herefore, wit hout cancellat ion by a Civil or Revenue Court , t he exact boundaries, m easurem ent s, and ownership cannot be in crim inal proceedings. This decided suit has ever been filed any case

26.07.2016, favour of t o cancel learned dat ed t he is m ainly about boundaries, disput e m easurem ent s, and alleged changes in sale deeds—issues t hat are purely civil in nat ure and m ust be decided in a proper civil suit . t he crim inal Suprem e Court t hat where

11. The respondent no.2 has not t aken such civil rem edies, and his earlier Civil Suit No. 603 of 2003 was dism issed. This aft ert hought t o pressure t he applicant . The Hon’ble consist ent ly t he allegat ions in a crim inal com plaint , even if t aken at face value, disclose a civil disput e wit hout t he essent ial ingredient s t he t he alleged crim inal offences, cont inuat ion of such proceedings am ount s t o abuse of t he process of t he court . I n view of t he above, t he C- 482 12. im pugned applicat ion cognizance/ sum m oning dat ed 26.07.2016 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magist rat e 2nd Dehradun under Sect ion 420, 467, 468, 120- B I .P.C. as well as t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 31.07.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge 5t h Dehradun in Crim inal is herby Revision No. 258 of 2016 quashed. is allowed. The [ Mam t a ( A l o k M a h r a, J.) 01.08.2025