Jaipal Yadav v. State of U.P. and another), passed an order dated

disposed of accordingly. The petitioner therein was directed to approach Hon'ble The Chief Justice in accordance with the rules of the High Court. The order passed therein reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Seven quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are said to be pending before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, seeks a direction that 2 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 all those petitions to be clubbed or consolidate together and decided most expeditiously. The petitioner for the above purpose may approach Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court in accordance with the rules of the High Court. Once, such an application is moved, it is expected that the Chief Justice would do the needful looking to the roster and the pendency of the other old cases. The present petition is disposed of,accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. An application dated 07.1.2025 was filed in connected Application U/S 482 No.23967 of 2018 in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court giving details of 10 other matters with the prayer to club them together. The matters were clubbed together and placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice along with the report dated 15.1.2025. Vide order dated

15.1.2025 Hon'ble The Chief Justice nominated this Bench to hear the said matters.

6. This Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Virendra Prakash Upadhyay, Ram Narain Tiwari, Jai Pal Yadav, with the following prayers:- "It is therefore Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application, quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.5712 of 2017, State vs. Jaipal Yadav and others, arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 24.5.2015 submitted in case crime no. 300 of 2008, U/s. 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 I.P.C. and 103(1)(2) Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad including the charge sheet dated 24.5.2015. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.5712 of 2017, State vs. Jaipal Yadav and others, arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 24.5.2015 3 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 submitted in case crime no. 300 of 2008, U/s. 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 I.P.C. and 103(1)(2) Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad. And/or to pass such order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and the circumstances of the present case."

9. Argument in short of learned counsel for the applicants is that in so far the co-accused Kiran Pal and 5 others are concerned they challenged the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 of the present case in Application U/S 482 No.4243 of 2010, Kiran Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which another Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2018 allowed the said petition and quashed the charge sheet of the said case, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no.2 to the affidavit in support of the present petition. The same reads as under:- "Shri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present. Heard and perused the record. The applicants Kiran Pal and five others, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 300 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of C.J.M. Ghaziabad and to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case crime. The brief facts which give rise to the adjudication of the application are that an FIR was lodged with the allegation that applicants along with other office bearers and associates of Jeevan Beema Rashtriya Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd., fraudulently increased the price of the flats already allotted to the opposite party no. 2 and without giving him opportunity created third party right in respect of the same. 4 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 had applied for allotment of house as a member of the society and he was allotted the house. Subsequently, the Government appointed Dahiya Committee for looking into the construction of houses and their size etc. On the recommendation of the said Committee flat area was increased and therefore corresponding price of the flat was re-determined and the member was required to pay the enhanced price. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 to make payment on the enhanced rate who declined to do so and the dispute was raised before the Registrar, Cooperative Society under Section 70 of the Cooperative Society Act, 1965 in which arbitration case no. 70 of 2006-07 was decided in favour of the society and the amount of Rs. 4,53,000/- was refunded to the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that present matter is purely civil in nature, but the opposite party no. 2 is misleading and misconceived, and the applicants are harassed for no fault committed on their part, since the opposite party no. 2 already received the payment of Rs. 4,53,000/- from the Society through cheque no. 686260 dated 06.05.2005, therefore, the dispute regarding the cancellation of flat have become infructuous. It is also submitted that the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government vide letter dated 07.4.2015 issued the direction in the similar matter which is as follows: एच संख्या एस आई बी (कोअम)/०६/२०१० िदनांक १६.३.२०१२ िजसके अतगर्त अिभयोजन के स्वीकृ ित की अपे्षा की गई थी के ्वम में " "It transpires from paper book that FIR was lodged by the allottee of flats whose flats were cancelled by the Housing Society. Mr. V.K Chaudhary was Joint/Deputy Housing Commissioner, against whom the civil police has not filed the charge sheet as nothing found against him. Later on matter was transferred to S.I. who seeks prosecution sanction. In any case, the cancellation or non-cancellation of flats is the administrative exercise and there is no allegation that the cancellation of flats was due to some ulterior motive. It is also significant notice that on similar matters even the High Court has intervened by observing that the cancellation of flats is a dispute of civil nature and does not fall under the ambit of Criminal law. In this background, the prosecution will be nothing to abuse of powers resulting in harassment to the alleged accused persons." के ्वम में 5 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 संदभर्गत ्ऺकरण में िवचारोपरांत ्शी वी के चौधरी तत्कालीन संयु्व/उप आवास अयु्व आवास एवम िवकास पिरषद् के िवरु्ध उपयु र््व उिल्लिखत मुकदमे में अिभयोिजत िकये जाने का औिचत्य नहीं पाया गया है।" Learned A.G.A. submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending before this Court and the same may be disposed of at this stage as the payment of Rs. 4,53,000/- has been received by the opposite party no. 2 from the Society. It is further contended that cancellation or non-cancellation is the administrative exercise and there is no allegation that cancellation of flat was due to some ulterior motive. The cancellation of flat is dispute of civil nature as it does not fall in the ambit of the criminal law. Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contends that though the amount has been received by the opposite party no. 2 yet the ingredients of the criminal offence are present against the applicants. In the case in the hand, the dispute is related to the possession over the flat which is purely a dispute of civil nature but the same has been dragged in a criminal court. The dispute had arisen when the escalated price of the flat has been asked from the allottee in accordance with the recommendation of the Dahiya Committee and that too after the area of the flat was increased. Thereafter, notice was issued to the allottee to make payment of the enhanced amount, but the opposite party no. 2 declined to make payment of escalated price. The efficacious remedy was sought under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act before the Arbitrator and resultantly award was passed. In pursuance of the said award, payment of Rs. 4,53,000/- has been received by the opposite party no. 2 from the Society. The implication of applicants in the present matter would amount to abuse of process of law. There is no evidence of wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 2 and wrongful gain to the applicants. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2009) 8 SCC 751] has held that this court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the 6 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimla (Dr.) Vs. Delhi Administration [AIR 1963 SC 1572] has explained the meaning of the expression "defraud" thus: "14..... the expression 'defraud' involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." It is clear that by alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law. In view of the above discussion and submission, the application has substance, therefore it is allowed and the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 300 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad is hereby quashed."

10. It is submitted that the facts of the case are the same as that of the case of Kiran Pal and 05 others. The said order has attained finality and as such the applicants are also entitled to the benefit of the same order. It is submitted that the applicant no. 1 is retired Co-operative Officer 7 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 (Housing), U.P. Housing and Development Board, the applicant no. 2 is the Ex-Administrator/Co-operative Officer(Housing), U.P. Housing and Development Board and the applicant no. 3 is Co-operative Supervisor, U.P. Housing and Development Board. It is submitted that common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicants. It is submitted that the present case is a case of purely civil in nature. Learned counsel for the applicants apart from relying upon the judgement and order passed in the case of Kiran Pal and 05 others, has also relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another: 2024 INSC 626 and Urmila Devi and others vs. Balram and another: 2025 INSC 915 and has submitted that since the present case is of civil flavour, the same deserves to be quashed.

11. Learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments and prayer in the petition but could not dispute the arguments being factual in nature and also the fact that petition of accused Kiran Pal and 05 others has been allowed by this Court, the order has become final and further the legal position is that the case although was initiated in the criminal forum but having flavour of civil consequence deserves to be quashed.

12. In view of the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and perusal of the records it is evident that the case of Kiran Pal and 05 others stand on identical footing, has been allowed and charge sheet against them has been quashed by another Bench of this Court vide order dated

18.2.2009. The said order has become final. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (Supra) and Urmila Devi and others (Supra) also held that a criminal case having civil flavour deserves to be quashed.

13. Thus the present petition is allowed.

14. The impugned proceeding of Criminal Case No.5712 of 2017, State vs. Jaipal Yadav and others, arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 24.5.2015 submitted in case crime no. 300 of 2008, U/s. 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 I.P.C. and 103(1)(2) Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of 8 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad including the charge sheet dated 24.5.2015 as prayed for by the applicants are hereby quashed. October 15, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

disposed of accordingly. The petitioner therein was directed to approach Hon'ble The Chief Justice in accordance with the rules of the High Court. The order passed therein reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Seven quashing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are said to be pending before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, seeks a direction that 2 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 all those petitions to be clubbed or consolidate together and decided most expeditiously. The petitioner for the above purpose may approach Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court in accordance with the rules of the High Court. Once, such an application is moved, it is expected that the Chief Justice would do the needful looking to the roster and the pendency of the other old cases. The present petition is disposed of,accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. An application dated 07.1.2025 was filed in connected Application U/S 482 No.23967 of 2018 in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court giving details of 10 other matters with the prayer to club them together. The matters were clubbed together and placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice along with the report dated 15.1.2025. Vide order dated

15.1.2025 Hon'ble The Chief Justice nominated this Bench to hear the said matters.

6. This Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Virendra Prakash Upadhyay, Ram Narain Tiwari, Jai Pal Yadav, with the following prayers:- "It is therefore Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application, quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.5712 of 2017, State vs. Jaipal Yadav and others, arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 24.5.2015 submitted in case crime no. 300 of 2008, U/s. 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 I.P.C. and 103(1)(2) Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad including the charge sheet dated 24.5.2015. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.5712 of 2017, State vs. Jaipal Yadav and others, arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 24.5.2015 3 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 submitted in case crime no. 300 of 2008, U/s. 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 I.P.C. and 103(1)(2) Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad. And/or to pass such order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and the circumstances of the present case."

9. Argument in short of learned counsel for the applicants is that in so far the co-accused Kiran Pal and 5 others are concerned they challenged the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 of the present case in Application U/S 482 No.4243 of 2010, Kiran Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which another Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2018 allowed the said petition and quashed the charge sheet of the said case, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no.2 to the affidavit in support of the present petition. The same reads as under:- "Shri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present. Heard and perused the record. The applicants Kiran Pal and five others, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 300 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of C.J.M. Ghaziabad and to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case crime. The brief facts which give rise to the adjudication of the application are that an FIR was lodged with the allegation that applicants along with other office bearers and associates of Jeevan Beema Rashtriya Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd., fraudulently increased the price of the flats already allotted to the opposite party no. 2 and without giving him opportunity created third party right in respect of the same. 4 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 had applied for allotment of house as a member of the society and he was allotted the house. Subsequently, the Government appointed Dahiya Committee for looking into the construction of houses and their size etc. On the recommendation of the said Committee flat area was increased and therefore corresponding price of the flat was re-determined and the member was required to pay the enhanced price. Notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 to make payment on the enhanced rate who declined to do so and the dispute was raised before the Registrar, Cooperative Society under Section 70 of the Cooperative Society Act, 1965 in which arbitration case no. 70 of 2006-07 was decided in favour of the society and the amount of Rs. 4,53,000/- was refunded to the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that present matter is purely civil in nature, but the opposite party no. 2 is misleading and misconceived, and the applicants are harassed for no fault committed on their part, since the opposite party no. 2 already received the payment of Rs. 4,53,000/- from the Society through cheque no. 686260 dated 06.05.2005, therefore, the dispute regarding the cancellation of flat have become infructuous. It is also submitted that the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government vide letter dated 07.4.2015 issued the direction in the similar matter which is as follows: एच संख्या एस आई बी (कोअम)/०६/२०१० िदनांक १६.३.२०१२ िजसके अतगर्त अिभयोजन के स्वीकृ ित की अपे्षा की गई थी के ्वम में " "It transpires from paper book that FIR was lodged by the allottee of flats whose flats were cancelled by the Housing Society. Mr. V.K Chaudhary was Joint/Deputy Housing Commissioner, against whom the civil police has not filed the charge sheet as nothing found against him. Later on matter was transferred to S.I. who seeks prosecution sanction. In any case, the cancellation or non-cancellation of flats is the administrative exercise and there is no allegation that the cancellation of flats was due to some ulterior motive. It is also significant notice that on similar matters even the High Court has intervened by observing that the cancellation of flats is a dispute of civil nature and does not fall under the ambit of Criminal law. In this background, the prosecution will be nothing to abuse of powers resulting in harassment to the alleged accused persons." के ्वम में 5 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 संदभर्गत ्ऺकरण में िवचारोपरांत ्शी वी के चौधरी तत्कालीन संयु्व/उप आवास अयु्व आवास एवम िवकास पिरषद् के िवरु्ध उपयु र््व उिल्लिखत मुकदमे में अिभयोिजत िकये जाने का औिचत्य नहीं पाया गया है।" Learned A.G.A. submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending before this Court and the same may be disposed of at this stage as the payment of Rs. 4,53,000/- has been received by the opposite party no. 2 from the Society. It is further contended that cancellation or non-cancellation is the administrative exercise and there is no allegation that cancellation of flat was due to some ulterior motive. The cancellation of flat is dispute of civil nature as it does not fall in the ambit of the criminal law. Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contends that though the amount has been received by the opposite party no. 2 yet the ingredients of the criminal offence are present against the applicants. In the case in the hand, the dispute is related to the possession over the flat which is purely a dispute of civil nature but the same has been dragged in a criminal court. The dispute had arisen when the escalated price of the flat has been asked from the allottee in accordance with the recommendation of the Dahiya Committee and that too after the area of the flat was increased. Thereafter, notice was issued to the allottee to make payment of the enhanced amount, but the opposite party no. 2 declined to make payment of escalated price. The efficacious remedy was sought under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act before the Arbitrator and resultantly award was passed. In pursuance of the said award, payment of Rs. 4,53,000/- has been received by the opposite party no. 2 from the Society. The implication of applicants in the present matter would amount to abuse of process of law. There is no evidence of wrongful loss to the opposite party no. 2 and wrongful gain to the applicants. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2009) 8 SCC 751] has held that this court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the 6 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimla (Dr.) Vs. Delhi Administration [AIR 1963 SC 1572] has explained the meaning of the expression "defraud" thus: "14..... the expression 'defraud' involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." It is clear that by alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law. In view of the above discussion and submission, the application has substance, therefore it is allowed and the charge sheet dated 18.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 300 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad is hereby quashed."

10. It is submitted that the facts of the case are the same as that of the case of Kiran Pal and 05 others. The said order has attained finality and as such the applicants are also entitled to the benefit of the same order. It is submitted that the applicant no. 1 is retired Co-operative Officer 7 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 (Housing), U.P. Housing and Development Board, the applicant no. 2 is the Ex-Administrator/Co-operative Officer(Housing), U.P. Housing and Development Board and the applicant no. 3 is Co-operative Supervisor, U.P. Housing and Development Board. It is submitted that common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicants. It is submitted that the present case is a case of purely civil in nature. Learned counsel for the applicants apart from relying upon the judgement and order passed in the case of Kiran Pal and 05 others, has also relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another: 2024 INSC 626 and Urmila Devi and others vs. Balram and another: 2025 INSC 915 and has submitted that since the present case is of civil flavour, the same deserves to be quashed.

11. Learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments and prayer in the petition but could not dispute the arguments being factual in nature and also the fact that petition of accused Kiran Pal and 05 others has been allowed by this Court, the order has become final and further the legal position is that the case although was initiated in the criminal forum but having flavour of civil consequence deserves to be quashed.

12. In view of the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and perusal of the records it is evident that the case of Kiran Pal and 05 others stand on identical footing, has been allowed and charge sheet against them has been quashed by another Bench of this Court vide order dated

18.2.2009. The said order has become final. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (Supra) and Urmila Devi and others (Supra) also held that a criminal case having civil flavour deserves to be quashed.

13. Thus the present petition is allowed.

14. The impugned proceeding of Criminal Case No.5712 of 2017, State vs. Jaipal Yadav and others, arising out of Charge-Sheet dated 24.5.2015 submitted in case crime no. 300 of 2008, U/s. 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 I.P.C. and 103(1)(2) Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of 8 A482 No. 11304 of 2020 A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad including the charge sheet dated 24.5.2015 as prayed for by the applicants are hereby quashed. October 15, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad