Mirza Talib Ali Beg And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Qazi Mohd. Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 18629 of 2021, (Asma Vs. Mirza Talib Ali Beg and others), under Sections 452, 323, 427 IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, District Sitapur and also quash the summoning order dated 04.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, District Sitapur, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as accused under Sections 452, 323, 427 IPC, arising out of Complaint Case No. 18629 of 2021, filed against the petitioners by the opposite party no.2.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 has lodged FIR n 14.8.2021 against the husband of opposite party no.2, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 at case Crime No. 31/2021.

4. It has been submitted that opposite party no.2 who is wife of Sajjan 2 A482 No. 9294 of 2022 Khan, instituted complaint after two months i.e. on 9.11.2021 making false allegation against the petitioners. The complaint has been lodged just to settle personal score and it is a case of counter blast of earlier FIR lodged by petitioner no.1.

5. It has further been submitted that once civil suit is pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings should not be launched and he has relied upon the judgment of paras 13, 15 and 21 of Mala Choudhary and another Vs. State of Telangana and another, 2-025 SCC OnLine SC 1474, Shaialesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462 and Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

6. He has submitted that in case of Mala Choudhary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no justification of registering the FIR rather the complainant should have been directed to avail the remedy by approaching the civil court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement of complainant as well as in the statements of the witnesses who are interested witnesses, therefore the complaint case is liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and after recording the statements of the complainant as well as two witnesses the court was satisfied and thereafter summons were issued.

9. It has been submitted that once the the offence is constituted after looking into the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound to issue summon rightly.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted after the death of late Sabihul Hasan son of Aley Hasan shifted to Lucknow and he rented his house to Sajjan Khan, who is husband of respondent no.2 and his family members. Sajjan Khan was agreed to purchase the house of Aley Hasan and in that respect registered agreement to sell was 3 A482 No. 9294 of 2022 executed on 13.8.2021, which which was registered in the Sub Registrar Office Biswa, Sitapur and the aforesaid house was purchased for sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/0 and Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid in advance and remaining was promised to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The opposite party no.2 and his family continued to reside in the aforesaid house along with house hold items and when the husband of the deponent was out of station the petitioners who were very influential persons came to the house and took possession of the house of deponent and thrown out the entire family members of the house with the help of local police and looted the articles along with jewellery and cash along with other house hold. He has also annexed photographs.

11. He has submitted that the huge amount was invested by the petitioners and the house was given in their possession but the petitioners being influential wanted to grab the house that is why on the date of incident offence was committed by them to oust the opposite party no.2 and her husband.

12. After going through the record, I find that the complaint indicates the facts wherein it is mentioned that on the date of occurrence the petitioners entered into the house and had beaten the opposite party no.2 and also allegation is levelled for theft. The statements of witnesses have been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they have also made allegation and have subscribed the facts wherein it is stated that the incident took place.

13. Whether the incident took place or not? it is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court, for which evidence is to be led. At this juncture I cannot come to the conclusion whether the incident took place or not? The pendency of civil suit cannot be ground for quashing the proceedings. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences are triable by the Magistrate and punishment provided below to 7 years. Therefore, he requested for the benefit of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to 4 A482 No. 9294 of 2022 Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021.

15. However, it is provided that in case the applicants/ petitioners apply for bail before the court concerned within three weeks from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. October 14, 2025 Muk (Brij Raj Singh,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Qazi Mohd. Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 18629 of 2021, (Asma Vs. Mirza Talib Ali Beg and others), under Sections 452, 323, 427 IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, District Sitapur and also quash the summoning order dated 04.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, District Sitapur, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as accused under Sections 452, 323, 427 IPC, arising out of Complaint Case No. 18629 of 2021, filed against the petitioners by the opposite party no.2.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 has lodged FIR n 14.8.2021 against the husband of opposite party no.2, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 at case Crime No. 31/2021.

4. It has been submitted that opposite party no.2 who is wife of Sajjan 2 A482 No. 9294 of 2022 Khan, instituted complaint after two months i.e. on 9.11.2021 making false allegation against the petitioners. The complaint has been lodged just to settle personal score and it is a case of counter blast of earlier FIR lodged by petitioner no.1.

5. It has further been submitted that once civil suit is pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings should not be launched and he has relied upon the judgment of paras 13, 15 and 21 of Mala Choudhary and another Vs. State of Telangana and another, 2-025 SCC OnLine SC 1474, Shaialesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462 and Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

6. He has submitted that in case of Mala Choudhary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no justification of registering the FIR rather the complainant should have been directed to avail the remedy by approaching the civil court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statement of complainant as well as in the statements of the witnesses who are interested witnesses, therefore the complaint case is liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and after recording the statements of the complainant as well as two witnesses the court was satisfied and thereafter summons were issued.

9. It has been submitted that once the the offence is constituted after looking into the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Court is duty bound to issue summon rightly.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted after the death of late Sabihul Hasan son of Aley Hasan shifted to Lucknow and he rented his house to Sajjan Khan, who is husband of respondent no.2 and his family members. Sajjan Khan was agreed to purchase the house of Aley Hasan and in that respect registered agreement to sell was 3 A482 No. 9294 of 2022 executed on 13.8.2021, which which was registered in the Sub Registrar Office Biswa, Sitapur and the aforesaid house was purchased for sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/0 and Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid in advance and remaining was promised to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The opposite party no.2 and his family continued to reside in the aforesaid house along with house hold items and when the husband of the deponent was out of station the petitioners who were very influential persons came to the house and took possession of the house of deponent and thrown out the entire family members of the house with the help of local police and looted the articles along with jewellery and cash along with other house hold. He has also annexed photographs.

11. He has submitted that the huge amount was invested by the petitioners and the house was given in their possession but the petitioners being influential wanted to grab the house that is why on the date of incident offence was committed by them to oust the opposite party no.2 and her husband.

12. After going through the record, I find that the complaint indicates the facts wherein it is mentioned that on the date of occurrence the petitioners entered into the house and had beaten the opposite party no.2 and also allegation is levelled for theft. The statements of witnesses have been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they have also made allegation and have subscribed the facts wherein it is stated that the incident took place.

13. Whether the incident took place or not? it is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court, for which evidence is to be led. At this juncture I cannot come to the conclusion whether the incident took place or not? The pendency of civil suit cannot be ground for quashing the proceedings. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences are triable by the Magistrate and punishment provided below to 7 years. Therefore, he requested for the benefit of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to 4 A482 No. 9294 of 2022 Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021.

15. However, it is provided that in case the applicants/ petitioners apply for bail before the court concerned within three weeks from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. October 14, 2025 Muk (Brij Raj Singh,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench