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. 2 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, seeks a direction that 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 by the applicant 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. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit dated

23.09.2025 in the office on 08.10.2025. The same is not on the record. Office to trace out the same and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet. Photocopy of the said counter affidavit has been provided by learned counsel for the State today in Court. The same is taken on the record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit.

8. This Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Jai Pal Yadav, V.P. Upadhyay, R.N. Tiwari, with the following prayers:- "It is therefore Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 12.10.2014 3 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 registered as Case No. 5527 of 2017, U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad filed in pursuance of Case Crime No. 299/2008, P.S.- Indirapuram, District- Ghaziabad. It is further prayed that further proceedings in the above matter pending in the court below may remain stayed as against the Applicants during the pendency of the present application before the Hon'ble Court or else the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

9. Argument in short of learned counsel for the applicants is that in so far the co-accused Sandeep Kumar and 5 others are concerned they challenged the charge sheet dated 04.10.2008 of the present case in Application U/S 482 No. 31798 of 2008, Standeep Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which another Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.5.2017 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. 10 to the affidavit in support of the present petition. The same reads as under:- "Shri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate are present. None turned up on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite sufficient service. Heard and perused the record. The applicants Sandeep Kumar 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 4.10.2008 in Case Crime No. 299 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and Section 103(1)(2) U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District 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 applicant along with other office bearers and associates of Jeevan Beema Rashtriya Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd., fraudulently increased the price of the flats already 4 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 allotted to the opposite party no. 2 and without giving him opportunity created third party right in respect of the same. It is submitted by 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. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 filed the civil suit as well as the arbitration cases under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 in which arbitration case no. 21 of 2006-07 was decided in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and the possession of the flat was delivered to the opposite party no. 2 by the society. It is also 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 flat was handed over to the opposite party no. 2, 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 5 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 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 संदभर्गत ्ऺकरण में िवचारोपरांत ्शी वी के चौधरी तत्कालीन संयु्व उप अधास अयु्व अवास एवम िवकास पिरषद् के िवरु्ध उपयु र््व उिल्लिखत मुकदमे में अिभयोिजत िकये जाने का अंिचत्य 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 flat in question was handed over to the opposite party no. 2. 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. 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. Therafter, 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 decree, the possession of the flat was handed over to the opposite party no. 2. 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 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 6 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 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. Application is allowed and the charge sheet dated 4.10.2008 in Case Crime No. 299 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and Section 103(1)(2) U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 Co-operative Officer, U.P. Housing and Development Board, the applicant no. 2 is the then Co-operative Officer(Housing) of U.P. Housing and Development Board and the 7 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 04.5.2017. 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 Charge-Sheet dated 12.10.2014 registered as Case No. 5527 of 2017, U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.,Case Crime No. 299/2008, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III is hereby quashed. October 15, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 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. 2 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, seeks a direction that 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 by the applicant 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. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit dated

23.09.2025 in the office on 08.10.2025. The same is not on the record. Office to trace out the same and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet. Photocopy of the said counter affidavit has been provided by learned counsel for the State today in Court. The same is taken on the record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit.

8. This Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Jai Pal Yadav, V.P. Upadhyay, R.N. Tiwari, with the following prayers:- "It is therefore Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 12.10.2014 3 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 registered as Case No. 5527 of 2017, U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Ghaziabad filed in pursuance of Case Crime No. 299/2008, P.S.- Indirapuram, District- Ghaziabad. It is further prayed that further proceedings in the above matter pending in the court below may remain stayed as against the Applicants during the pendency of the present application before the Hon'ble Court or else the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

9. Argument in short of learned counsel for the applicants is that in so far the co-accused Sandeep Kumar and 5 others are concerned they challenged the charge sheet dated 04.10.2008 of the present case in Application U/S 482 No. 31798 of 2008, Standeep Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which another Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.5.2017 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. 10 to the affidavit in support of the present petition. The same reads as under:- "Shri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate are present. None turned up on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite sufficient service. Heard and perused the record. The applicants Sandeep Kumar 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 4.10.2008 in Case Crime No. 299 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and Section 103(1)(2) U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District 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 applicant along with other office bearers and associates of Jeevan Beema Rashtriya Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd., fraudulently increased the price of the flats already 4 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 allotted to the opposite party no. 2 and without giving him opportunity created third party right in respect of the same. It is submitted by 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. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 filed the civil suit as well as the arbitration cases under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 in which arbitration case no. 21 of 2006-07 was decided in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and the possession of the flat was delivered to the opposite party no. 2 by the society. It is also 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 flat was handed over to the opposite party no. 2, 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 5 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 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 संदभर्गत ्ऺकरण में िवचारोपरांत ्शी वी के चौधरी तत्कालीन संयु्व उप अधास अयु्व अवास एवम िवकास पिरषद् के िवरु्ध उपयु र््व उिल्लिखत मुकदमे में अिभयोिजत िकये जाने का अंिचत्य 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 flat in question was handed over to the opposite party no. 2. 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. 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. Therafter, 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 decree, the possession of the flat was handed over to the opposite party no. 2. 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 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 6 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 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. Application is allowed and the charge sheet dated 4.10.2008 in Case Crime No. 299 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and Section 103(1)(2) U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 Co-operative Officer, U.P. Housing and Development Board, the applicant no. 2 is the then Co-operative Officer(Housing) of U.P. Housing and Development Board and the 7 A482 No. 23967 of 2018 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 Sandeep Kumar 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 04.5.2017. 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 Charge-Sheet dated 12.10.2014 registered as Case No. 5527 of 2017, U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.,Case Crime No. 299/2008, P.S.- Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III is hereby quashed. October 15, 2025 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.) NARESH KUMAR NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad