Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20326 of 2025 Hari Shanker Gupta And Another State Of U.P. And 3 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajiv Kumar Singh, Shiv Veer Singh : Anil Kumar Pathak, Chandra Pratap Singh, G.A. Court No. - 42 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit placing the certified copy of the impugned F.I.R., filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Sageer Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shiv Veer Singh and Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General
Legal Reasoning
12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18302 of 2022 (Dilip Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) has held as under:- "Considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot be denied that there is no express bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding as well as civil proceedings. Citing the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1999) 8 SCC 686 (Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Others). It has been held that criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted merely because civil proceedings are also maintainable. Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. Thus, even if the civil proceedings are subjudice before the Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi, the criminal prosecution can still proceed against the petitioner. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of records, it is apparent that the allegations in the FIR do constitute ingredients of a cognizable offence." (Emphasis supplied) 13. In this view of the matter and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry (supra), Paramjeet Batra (supra), Vesa Holdings (supra) as well as judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Singh @ Deepu Singh (supra) and as well as the judgment passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 11789 of 2023 (Tuphail Ahmad and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged in the first information report, we find that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a 7 CRLP No. 20326 of 2025 civil dispute is pending and no criminality is attached in the act, is not sustainable in the eye of law hence, stands rejected. 14. We also find that on a bare reading of the impugned FIR a cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 15. This petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Vivek Kumar Birla,J.) September 11, 2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Shri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4-Informant. 3. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 31.08.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0211 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District East Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 4.The F.I.R. impugned herein has been lodged in respect of the sale deed executed on 3.6.2013. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that one Asha Lata Katiyar R/o Swaroop Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar was a professor in A.N.D. Maha Vidhyalaya and she married with Shri Kant Sharma R/o Patiyala, Punjab. When Ashala Lata Katiyar went to her matrimonial home, she was caused cruelty by the husband and other family members. Thereafter she came back and lived with her mother. After the death of mother of Asha Lata Katiyar, she became the sole owner of the property 2 CRLP No. 20326 of 2025 in dispute. Respondent No.4 was her neighbour who used to look after her, therefore, she executed a will deed of her entire property in favour of respondent no.4 as husband Shri Kant Sharma never contacted with her during her life time, therefore, petitioners who are the land gravers got executed a registered sale deed in their favour by placing imposter in place of Shri Kant. While name of Shri Kant Sharma is not in the revenue record nor he was authorized to execute the sale deed in favour of any one. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that present criminal prosecution has falsely been lodged against the petitioners in respect of the civil dispute. He further submits that petitioner no.1 and 2 are real brothers while petitioner no.1 is a practicing advocate in the District Court, Kanpur Nagar. He further submits that one Asha Lata is said to have inherited the property of her parents and thereafter through a Will-deed dated 2.5.2013 she transferred her property to Respondent No.4 while the husband of Asha Lata has executed the registered agreement to sell dated 3.6.2013 in favour of petitioner and thereafter a registered sale deed has been executed by power of attorney holder of Shri Kant Sharma on 31.7.2013 in favour of petitioners. Husband of Asha Lata had lodged F.I.R. on 25.5.2014 against Respondent No.4 for making false and forged documents and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against Respondent No.4. He further submits that Shri Kant Sharma and Smt. Asha Lata were issueless and after death of Asha Lata, her husband has been declared successor of the property of Asha Lata Sharma. He further submits that Respondent NO.4 has filed a suit for permanent injunction before the court of Cvil Judge, Kanpur on the basis of forged Will of Asha Lata Sharma wherein Will was hightly disputed, therefore, probate case was also filed by Respondent No.4 to prolong the civil litigation. He next submits that after the death of Shri Kant Sharma Respondent No.4 has lodged impugned F.I.R. against the petitioners on the basis of false facts. He also submits that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner in any court and previously they have not been convicted in any criminal case by any court, as such, petitioners are innocent and the law abiding persons. He further submission is that civil dispute is being given colour of criminal prosecution and is liable to be quashed. 3 CRLP No. 20326 of 2025 6. Per contra, Additional Advocate General, assisted by learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 pointed out that petitioners are land grabbers who fraudulently got registered sale deed in their favour though seller had no authority to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioners. He next submits that one Shri Kant Sharma from whom petitioners purchased the property was not the owner of the said property and petitioners fraudulently purchased the same by representing to some one as Shri Kant. There is a long criminal history of 8 cases against the petitioners and most of them are related with the offence of forgery and cheating with regard to valuable property and documents. He further submits that Asha Lata Sharma inherited the immovable and moveable property from her parents and, therefore, she was the lawful owner of the property and her property could not be sold by any one who had no concern or authority with the said property. 7. We find force in the argument advanced by learned Additional Advocate General that though there are civil litigation between the parties before the competent court, but several criminal cases are also pending against the petitioners as shown in the criminal history submitted by the respondents side. Here it is also to be noted that in the affidavit filed in support of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have claimed that no criminal case is pending against them in any court but from perusal of the record the courts that the petitioners have a criminal history. The petitioners have placed misconceived facts and filed false affidavit before the court. 8. The Petition No.1 is admittedly a practicing lawyer in District Kanpur Nagar, and as informed by learned counsel for the respondent he has criminal history of following cases. (i). F.I.R. No. 403 of 2006 was lodged at Police Station Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta. (ii) F.I.R. No. 484 of 2006 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District-Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta. (iii) F.I.R. No. 279 of 2012 was lodged at Police Station Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar, under Section 60 of Excise Act against Hari Sanakar Gupta. 4 CRLP No. 20326 of 2025 (iv) F.I.R. No. 425 of 2014 was lodged at Police Station Naubasta, District-Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 323, 147, 148 IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta. (v) F.I.R. No. 114 of 2017 was lodged at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 147, 420, 467, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta and Hari Mohan Gupta. (vi) F.I.R. No. 547 of 2024 was lodged at Police Station Ganga Ghat, District-Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta and Hari Mohan Gupta. (vii) F.I.R. No. 35 of 2025 was lodged at Police Station Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 352, 351(3), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(Gha) IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta and Hari Mohan Gupta. (viii) F.I.R. No. 211 of 2025 was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District-Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC against Hari Sanakar Gupta and Hari Mohan Gupta. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 686 has held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under:- "7. Time and again this Court has been pointing out that quashment of FIR or a complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions [vide State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 suppl.(1) SCC 335) and Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi (1999(3) SCC 259)]. 8. In the last referred case this court also pointed out that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. We quote the following observations: 10. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions." 9. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the 5 CRLP No. 20326 of 2025 agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajaj Lal (Supra). (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 has clearly held that the complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have criminal texture. Para 12 of the said judgment reads as under:- "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court." (Emphasis supplied) 11. In Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Kerala & Ors, (2015) 8 SCC 293 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. Relevant extract of para 13 of the said judgment reads as under:- 6 CRLP No. 20326 of 2025 13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not….” (Emphasis supplied)