Satyapal Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand another

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was witness in Will dated 13.10.2003, which was executed by late Mahendra Singh in favour of 1 one Babli; that a litigation being Misc. Case No. 105 of 2003 Smt. Mahendra Kaur vs. Vishal and others and Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 Smt. Mahendra Kaur and others vs. Babli D/o Isam Singh and others was instituted by Smt. Mahendra Kaur in the court of Civil Judge (S/D), Haridwar; that Babli also filed an Original Suit No. 1 of 2004, Babli vs. Manager Life Insurance Corporation India Branch Ranipur, Modh and others claiming the right on the movable and immovable property of Late Mahendra Singh on the basis of aforesaid Will dated 13.10.2003; that the aforesaid suits were clubbed and were decided by a common judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 passed by Civil Judge (S/D), Hardiwar whereby the Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 was decreed and the counter claim was dismissed and also the suit no. 1 of 2004 filed by the above named Babli was also dismissed; that while deciding the aforesaid Civil Suit the learned Civil Judge has recorded a finding that Babli could not prove the Will dated 13.10.2003 by producing the witness i.e. handwriting expert and it was also observed that the specimen signature of Late Mahendra Singh were taken from the record of other litigation which are not admitted signature; that however the learned Civil Judge has not made any observation for registration of any criminal case against the above named Bali and applicant who is a witness of Will deed dated

13.10.2003; that however the respondent no.2 lodged an FIR which was registered as Case Crime No. 7 of 2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardiwar; that the alleged Will in which the applicant was a witness was executed on

13.10.2003 and the same was produced in support of her case by above named Babli in the court in the year 2004 2 and the same was in the knowledge of the respondent no.2 but the FIR was lodged on 11.01.2021 after about 8 years; that as the matter was related to the evidence adduced in the court by above named Babli the police has submitted a Final Report dated 06.08.2011 to the effect that since the matter is barred by section 195-B Cr.P.C. no cognizance can be taken; that the matter was investigated and the IO without collecting any evidence against the applicant has submitted charge-sheet dated

28.08.2012 in the aforesaid matter against the applicant and above named Babli; that on the aforesaid charge- sheet the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 6565 of 2012, State vs. Babli and another, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar; that the case was heard on the issue of framing of charges and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2015 directed framing of charges against the applicant; that against the order dated 11.09.2015, the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2015, Satyapal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and other; that the said Revision was decided vide order dated 22.07.2016, whereby the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar has dismissed the Revision; that the impugned orders dated

11.09.2015 as well as judgment and order dated

22.07.2016 passed by the Courts below are illegal and improper and are liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial against the co-accused Babli and co- 3 accused Roshni has already been concluded. The co- accused Babli was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC and the co-accused Roshni was acquitted in the aforesaid trial vide judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hairdwar, District Haridwar. The co-accused Babli preferred an appeal bearing no. 190 of 2021 and Babli was acquitted vide judgment dated 22.03.2025 thus the beneficiary of the Will as well as other co- accused have already been acquitted by the court below therefore, the prosecution against the applicant, who is a witness of the Will is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the trial against the co-accused has been concluded and they have been acquitted. As the Trial against the co-accused has been concluded and role of the applicant was of a witness, as such, criminal proceedings against the applicant are liable to be terminated. Moreover, the dispute was of Civil in nature and the FIR was lodged 8 years after the execution of the Will and even the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2003- 2004 much prior to the lodging of the FIR in 2011, thus, it is clear that a Civil dispute was given a criminal colour.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Ant. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ant., 2024, INSC 196 has considered this aspect and in para 6 of the said order has held as under:-

6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 4 Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to 7 be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. In view of the observations made in the 5 preceding paragraphs, the present C-482 Application is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 22.07.2016, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2015, Satyapal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and another and the order dated 11.09.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardiwar in Criminal Case No. 6565 of 2012, State vs. Babli and others, whereby the learned Magistrate has passed the order for framing of charge against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, are quashed. Kaushal (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 06.10.2025 6