Sri Ram Prajapati v. Ravi Bhushan
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28778 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6148 of 2019 Applicant :- Sri Ram Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Kunwar Rajan,Mohd. Aslam Khan,Randhir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Narayan Mishra,Deepak Kumar Tripathi,G.A.,Rajesh Tripathi,Vinod Kant Mishra Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by Shri Chandra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 today in the Court, is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Alok Krishan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chandra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 10/2023 (Sri Ram Prajapati Vs. Ravi Bhushan @ Seishdhar Mishra), Case Crime No. 56/2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Atarsuiya, District- Allahabad. 3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that applicant and opposite party no. 3 are real brother. They are four brothers and each brother is having 1/4th share in the House No. 1508A, Arazi No. 169M, situated in Gram- Dariyabad, Pragna Tehsil Sadar, District-Allahabad. The sale deed dated 08.8.2011 was executed by the opposite party no. 3 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 regarding 2/3rd share leaving 1/4th share for the applicant. Thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 06.05.2012 in which police has submitted final report on 25.04.2016 against which protest petition was filed which was allowed on 03.10.2017 and same registered as complaint, which was dismissed by order dated 30.01.2019, which is impugned in the present application. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while passing the impugned order, court below has not considered the statement of his witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. therefore, impugned order is absolutely erroneous being non consideration of the relevant statements. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that it is not in dispute that applicant no. 1 is the owner of only 1/4th share in the house in dispute, which is situated in Arazi No. 169 M regarding which no litigation is pending in any civil court. It is also submitted that in family partition, the applicant got 2/3rd share in the house no. 1508A situated in Arazi No. 169M therefore, he has rightly transferred 2/3rd share in favour of opposite party no. 2 through sale deed dated 08.08.2011. It is also submitted that applicant has filed suit for injunction bearing no. 260/2015 wherein prayer for permanent injunction was prayed for regarding Arazi No. 195/2, 199/2, 168/3, 192, 193/2, 195/1, 196/3 situated in Mauza Dariyabad, Pargana Tehsil Sadar, District-Allahabad and no suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.08.2011 or for determination of share in the house in dispute and F.I.R. was lodged just to give the colour of criminality to the civil dispute. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Learned A.G.A. has also supported the arguments made by counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 3 are real brother and applicant and opposite party no. 3 are also having two other brothers namely Shiv Ram and Akhilendra. Therefore, applicant can be said to be the owner of the 1/4th share in the house in dispute even if the opposite party no. 3 has transferred 2/3rd share in favour of opposite party no. 2 then he has no locus to initiate criminal proceeding. Other two brothers namely Shiv Kumar and Akhilendra have not filed any civil suit or criminal proceeding against the opposite party no. 3 regarding their share. Therefore, it cannot be said that opposite party no. 3, while transferring 2/3rd share in the house in dispute through sale deed dated 08.08.2011, has committed any forgery with the applicant. It is also not in dispute that applicant has not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.08.2011 or any suit for declaration of his right to the extend of 1/2 share in place of 1/4th share in the house in dispute. The court below has dismissed the suit after considering the statement of the applicant, on the ground that the dispute between the parties, is purely civil in nature, which has been given flavour of criminal nature by the applicant. 6. So far as the contention of the applicant that while passing the impugned order court below has not considered the statement of witnesses of applicant recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also misconceived because from the perusal of the statement of witnesses of applicant it is clear that they have simply stated that opposite party no. 2 has transferred more than half of his share, which belongs to applicant. This fact was already stated in detail by the applicant in his statement. Even otherwise, from the perusal of record, it appears that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, therefore criminal proceeding in such cases is not maintainable specially in that cases where no proceeding in civil court has been initiated disputing the sale deed executed by opposite party no. 3 or his share. 7. Apex Court in the case Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others (2006) 6 SCC 736 as well as in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 has observed that there is a tendency to convert civil dispute into criminal dispute. Any effort to settle civil disputes which do not involve any criminal offence, should be deprecated and discouraged. 8. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Sharad/- Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad