High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Parshu Ram And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Shamimul Hasnain,Sudhakar Upadhyay Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidahr Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Pawan Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing entire proceedings of complaint case no.2207 of 2006, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of CJM, Siddharth Nagar.

3. In the instant matter, a complaint was filed by O.P. no.2 against the applicants on 19.06.2006 alleging that she is only daughter of her father late Kunnu, who died on 03.02.2005, the applicants have got prepared/registered a forged will-deed in the back date i.e. 28.08.1988 in their name of the property belong to her father. In the said complaint after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summons were issued on 27.09.2006. The entire proceedings have been challenged in this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 happens to be the only daughter of Kunnu (since deceased). She stays in Nepal after her marriage. The applicant nos.1 to 4 happens to be the relatives of Kunnu, were rendering their services in his old age, therefore, Kunnu executed a unregistered will-deed of his property in their favour. In the said will-deed 1/5 share was also given to opposite party no.2. He further submits that aggrieved by the said will-deed, opposite party no.2 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction being Civil Suit No.331 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2015 by the trial Court, against which the opposite party no.2 filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Against the order passed in appeal, the opposite party no.2 has filed a second appeal before this Court being Second Appeal No.706 of 2024, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during pendency of civil suit the opposite party no.2 has initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. He also submits that it is a pure civil dispute wherein the opposite party no.2 has filed a suit, appeal before the trial/appellate Court and second appeal before this Court, which have been dismissed and the order passed in second appeal has attained finality. The criminal proceedings is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and in a very mechanical manner issued summons against the applicants.

6. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim v. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1157 wherein the Court has held as under:- "Both the FIR and the charge-sheet, which has been submitted after investigation, would leave no manner of doubt that there are rival contentions of the appellant, on the one hand, and the second respondent, who is the complainant, on the other, which form the subject of a pending suit. The contesting parties lay a claim to the immovable property, which is in dispute. The appellant founded his claim on the strength of an alleged deed of gift. On the other hand, the second respondent has claimed on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed in his favour. The second respondent has instituted a suit for declaration and possession which is pending. The suit was dismissed in default on 13 October 2014. The sale deed was executed by the appellant on 24 November 2014. The suit has been restored to file on 21 April 2016. Each of the rival claims would be tested in the course of the evidence adduced at the trial of the suit. Mr Sanjay Singh submitted that since the sale took place during the pendency of the suit, doctrine of lis pendens will apply.........."

7. He further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seetharam and another reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 168 wherein it has been held as under:- "...........An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed."

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the application and contended that the opposite party no.2 is only daughter of late Kunnu and the applicants have got registered a forged will- deed of his property in the back date. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

9. Heard rival submissions made on both side and perused the record.

10. It is evident that the opposite party no.2 has challenged the said will-deed in a Suit, thereafter, in Appeal and lastly in Second Appeal before this Court, however, she could not succeed in civil proceedings and the order passed in Second Appeal has attained finality. It is also evident that during pendency of civil proceedings the opposite party no.2 has initiated criminal proceedings just to put undue pressure upon the applicants. It is also evident that an attempt has been made by opposite party no.2 to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 constitutes an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

11. Even in the matter of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim(supra) and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that if there is an attempt of cloak a civil dispute in the criminal proceedings, such complaint filed by the complainant ought to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings of complaint case no.2207 of 2006, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of CJM, Siddharth Nagar are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Parshu Ram And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Shamimul Hasnain,Sudhakar Upadhyay Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidahr Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Pawan Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing entire proceedings of complaint case no.2207 of 2006, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of CJM, Siddharth Nagar.

3. In the instant matter, a complaint was filed by O.P. no.2 against the applicants on 19.06.2006 alleging that she is only daughter of her father late Kunnu, who died on 03.02.2005, the applicants have got prepared/registered a forged will-deed in the back date i.e. 28.08.1988 in their name of the property belong to her father. In the said complaint after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summons were issued on 27.09.2006. The entire proceedings have been challenged in this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 happens to be the only daughter of Kunnu (since deceased). She stays in Nepal after her marriage. The applicant nos.1 to 4 happens to be the relatives of Kunnu, were rendering their services in his old age, therefore, Kunnu executed a unregistered will-deed of his property in their favour. In the said will-deed 1/5 share was also given to opposite party no.2. He further submits that aggrieved by the said will-deed, opposite party no.2 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction being Civil Suit No.331 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2015 by the trial Court, against which the opposite party no.2 filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Against the order passed in appeal, the opposite party no.2 has filed a second appeal before this Court being Second Appeal No.706 of 2024, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during pendency of civil suit the opposite party no.2 has initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. He also submits that it is a pure civil dispute wherein the opposite party no.2 has filed a suit, appeal before the trial/appellate Court and second appeal before this Court, which have been dismissed and the order passed in second appeal has attained finality. The criminal proceedings is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and in a very mechanical manner issued summons against the applicants.

6. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim v. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1157 wherein the Court has held as under:- "Both the FIR and the charge-sheet, which has been submitted after investigation, would leave no manner of doubt that there are rival contentions of the appellant, on the one hand, and the second respondent, who is the complainant, on the other, which form the subject of a pending suit. The contesting parties lay a claim to the immovable property, which is in dispute. The appellant founded his claim on the strength of an alleged deed of gift. On the other hand, the second respondent has claimed on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed in his favour. The second respondent has instituted a suit for declaration and possession which is pending. The suit was dismissed in default on 13 October 2014. The sale deed was executed by the appellant on 24 November 2014. The suit has been restored to file on 21 April 2016. Each of the rival claims would be tested in the course of the evidence adduced at the trial of the suit. Mr Sanjay Singh submitted that since the sale took place during the pendency of the suit, doctrine of lis pendens will apply.........."

7. He further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seetharam and another reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 168 wherein it has been held as under:- "...........An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed."

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the application and contended that the opposite party no.2 is only daughter of late Kunnu and the applicants have got registered a forged will- deed of his property in the back date. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

9. Heard rival submissions made on both side and perused the record.

10. It is evident that the opposite party no.2 has challenged the said will-deed in a Suit, thereafter, in Appeal and lastly in Second Appeal before this Court, however, she could not succeed in civil proceedings and the order passed in Second Appeal has attained finality. It is also evident that during pendency of civil proceedings the opposite party no.2 has initiated criminal proceedings just to put undue pressure upon the applicants. It is also evident that an attempt has been made by opposite party no.2 to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 constitutes an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

11. Even in the matter of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim(supra) and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that if there is an attempt of cloak a civil dispute in the criminal proceedings, such complaint filed by the complainant ought to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings of complaint case no.2207 of 2006, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, pending in the Court of CJM, Siddharth Nagar are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 S.P. SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad