State v. Sonia

1. Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in Case No.3185/2014 : State Vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi and others dated

16.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No.166 of 2014, whereby, criminal revision filed against the order rejecting discharge application has been dismissed. The applicant also prays for quashing of entire proceedings including Chargesheet in Case Crime No.158 of 2013, under Sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question was initially recorded in the name of Late Bhola, who died on 2 A482 No. - 210 of 2016

01.03.1995. Thereafter, the applicant’s name came to be recorded through P.A.-11 on 21.12.2000. The Consolidation Authority, by order dated 27.08.2010, confirmed the title of the applicant as the successor of Late Bhola. The said order was challenged in appeal, and proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act were also initiated. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 29.08.2011, upheld the title of the applicant. It is contended that despite the confirmation of title in favour of the applicant by the competent authority, the complainant Suresh Chandra lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.158/2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., alleging that the applicant, during the pendency of consolidation proceedings, obtained the order of PA-11 fraudulently and executed a sale deed using forged papers and by concealing her identity. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet under the aforesaid sections. The Magistrate took cognizance, rejected the applicant’s discharge application on 20.10.2014, and the revision filed against the same was dismissed on 16.11.2015.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the decision of civil court confirming the title of the applicant, the complainant lodged the FIR on false and fictitious ground. The complainant Suresh Chandra has lodged false F.I.R. at Case Crime No.158/2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki with the allegation that during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner has obtained the order of PA-11 and executed a sale deed in favour of purchaser and allegation of using different names by the petitioner in the record has also made in order to commit forgery in executing the sale deed.

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire dispute is civil in nature, relating to title over agricultural land. The FIR was maliciously lodged after the applicant’s title was upheld by the revenue authorities. The cognizance taken by the Magistrate is barred under Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., as the allegations pertain to documents produced before the revenue court. Both courts below failed to appreciate 3 A482 No. - 210 of 2016 the settled legal principle that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue when there is a civil dispute is of civil nature. The applicant is a lady and has been unnecessarily harassed by the criminal process.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that both the courts below have not considered the settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court to the effect that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle the dispute which is purely of civil in nature. Hence, the impugned orders dated 20.10.2014, 16.11.2014 and proceedings of Criminal Case No.3185 of 2014 (State Vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki are abuse of process of law as well as process of court and the same are liable to be quashed.

7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar : 2022 Live Law (SC) 763 ; Usha Chakraborty & another Vs. State of West Bengal and another : 2023 Live Law (SC) 67 decided on 30.1.2023 and Gulam Mushtafa Vs. State of Karnataka : 2023 Live Law (SC)

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the application and submitted that specific allegations of fraud and forgery have been made in the FIR, and at this stage, sufficiency or reliability of evidence cannot be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has an opportunity to prove her defence during trial.

9. From the record, it is evident that the dispute pertains to the ownership and transfer of land which has already been the subject matter of proceedings before the consolidation and revenue courts. The issue of title has been decided in favour of the applicant, and no material has been placed before this Court to indicate that such findings have been stayed or set aside by any competent court. 4 A482 No. - 210 of 2016

10. It is a settled proposition of law that when the dispute essentially involves civil rights and there is no clear element of criminal intent, the initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335); G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673.

11. In the present case, the allegations of forgery and cheating are not supported by any independent evidence apart from the civil dispute regarding title. The investigating agency, despite noting civil documents and prior orders in favour of the applicant, proceeded to file a chargesheet. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal law machinery.

12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 28.10.2014 and 16.11.2015, as well as the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.3185 of 2014 (State vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi), are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2014 passed by C.J.M. Barabanki, revisional order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Barabanki, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3185 of 2014 (State vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi and others) including chargesheet of Case Crime No.158/2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, are hereby quashed.

14. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not affect the civil rights of the parties, which may be adjudicated by the competent civil/ revenue forum in accordance with law. November 19, 2025 SHUKLA. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in Case No.3185/2014 : State Vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi and others dated

16.11.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No.166 of 2014, whereby, criminal revision filed against the order rejecting discharge application has been dismissed. The applicant also prays for quashing of entire proceedings including Chargesheet in Case Crime No.158 of 2013, under Sections 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question was initially recorded in the name of Late Bhola, who died on 2 A482 No. - 210 of 2016

01.03.1995. Thereafter, the applicant’s name came to be recorded through P.A.-11 on 21.12.2000. The Consolidation Authority, by order dated 27.08.2010, confirmed the title of the applicant as the successor of Late Bhola. The said order was challenged in appeal, and proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act were also initiated. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 29.08.2011, upheld the title of the applicant. It is contended that despite the confirmation of title in favour of the applicant by the competent authority, the complainant Suresh Chandra lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.158/2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., alleging that the applicant, during the pendency of consolidation proceedings, obtained the order of PA-11 fraudulently and executed a sale deed using forged papers and by concealing her identity. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet under the aforesaid sections. The Magistrate took cognizance, rejected the applicant’s discharge application on 20.10.2014, and the revision filed against the same was dismissed on 16.11.2015.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the decision of civil court confirming the title of the applicant, the complainant lodged the FIR on false and fictitious ground. The complainant Suresh Chandra has lodged false F.I.R. at Case Crime No.158/2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki with the allegation that during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner has obtained the order of PA-11 and executed a sale deed in favour of purchaser and allegation of using different names by the petitioner in the record has also made in order to commit forgery in executing the sale deed.

5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire dispute is civil in nature, relating to title over agricultural land. The FIR was maliciously lodged after the applicant’s title was upheld by the revenue authorities. The cognizance taken by the Magistrate is barred under Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., as the allegations pertain to documents produced before the revenue court. Both courts below failed to appreciate 3 A482 No. - 210 of 2016 the settled legal principle that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue when there is a civil dispute is of civil nature. The applicant is a lady and has been unnecessarily harassed by the criminal process.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that both the courts below have not considered the settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court to the effect that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle the dispute which is purely of civil in nature. Hence, the impugned orders dated 20.10.2014, 16.11.2014 and proceedings of Criminal Case No.3185 of 2014 (State Vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki are abuse of process of law as well as process of court and the same are liable to be quashed.

7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar : 2022 Live Law (SC) 763 ; Usha Chakraborty & another Vs. State of West Bengal and another : 2023 Live Law (SC) 67 decided on 30.1.2023 and Gulam Mushtafa Vs. State of Karnataka : 2023 Live Law (SC)

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the application and submitted that specific allegations of fraud and forgery have been made in the FIR, and at this stage, sufficiency or reliability of evidence cannot be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has an opportunity to prove her defence during trial.

9. From the record, it is evident that the dispute pertains to the ownership and transfer of land which has already been the subject matter of proceedings before the consolidation and revenue courts. The issue of title has been decided in favour of the applicant, and no material has been placed before this Court to indicate that such findings have been stayed or set aside by any competent court. 4 A482 No. - 210 of 2016

10. It is a settled proposition of law that when the dispute essentially involves civil rights and there is no clear element of criminal intent, the initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335); G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673.

11. In the present case, the allegations of forgery and cheating are not supported by any independent evidence apart from the civil dispute regarding title. The investigating agency, despite noting civil documents and prior orders in favour of the applicant, proceeded to file a chargesheet. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal law machinery.

12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 28.10.2014 and 16.11.2015, as well as the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.3185 of 2014 (State vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi), are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2014 passed by C.J.M. Barabanki, revisional order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Barabanki, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3185 of 2014 (State vs. Sonia @ Maya Devi and others) including chargesheet of Case Crime No.158/2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, are hereby quashed.

14. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not affect the civil rights of the parties, which may be adjudicated by the competent civil/ revenue forum in accordance with law. November 19, 2025 SHUKLA. (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench