SARDAR ALI KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR. on 24 January 2020

[2020] 1 S.C.R. 145

SARDAR ALI KHAN

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2020)

JANUARY 24, 2020

[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND

R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 418, 419, 420, 467 & 468 and 471 –A plot was owned by the father of the 2[nd] respondent and appellantclaimed purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29.12.1993 whichwas registered on 05.01.1994 – Father of the 2[nd ]respondent died inthe year 1997 – In 2008, the 2[nd ]respondent filed a suit against theappellant and sought cancellation of sale deed – In 2012, 2[nd]respondent also filed a complaint against the appellant allegingoffences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC – Applicationsfiled by the appellant for discharge were rejected – Subsequently,application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the aboveproceedings, however, the same was rejected by the High Court –On appeal, held: The registered sale deed of the property in questionwas of the year 1994, the 2[nd] respondent filed suit in the year 2008seeking cancellation of sale deed – There was no allegation ofimpersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2[nd]respondent – Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2[nd]respondent filed criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgeryand impersonation – When the matter is pending in the Civil Courtregarding the validity of the sale deed, it is for the Civil Court todecide whether any fraud was played or not by the appellant, onthe late father of the 2[nd] respondent for obtaining the sale deed –When the same issue was seized up before the Civil Court, the 2[nd]respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against theappellant for alleged offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471IPC – Having regard to serious factual disputes which were of civilnature, for which civil suits were pending, allowing the 2[nd]respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings would

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

[2020] 1 S.C.R.

Aamount to abuse of the process of law – Therefore, criminalproceedings quashed.Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: At the outset it is to be noted that the appellanthas purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29[th]BDecember,1993 which was registered on 5[th] January, 1994. Thefather of the 2[nd] respondent died on 3[rd] December, 1997. Thoughthe registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2[nd] respondent filed suitwhich is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in the year 2008seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid saleCdeed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by makinguse of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulentmanner. There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery ofsignatures in the suit filed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is the case ofthe appellant that even the 2[nd] respondent is a signatory to thesale deed as a witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008,Dthe 2[nd] respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint onlyin the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With regardto the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before thecompetent civil court and it is for the civil court to decide whetherany fraud is played or not by the appellant, on the late father ofEthe 2[nd] respondent for obtaining the sale deed. When the verysame issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2[nd] respondentcannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant foralleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471IPC. Although, it is contended by the 2[nd] respondent thatcomplaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time itFappears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in theyear 2012. The sale deed on which basis the title and possessionis claimed by the appellant was registered on 5[th] January, 1994,suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even after filing of thesuit on 24[th] August, 2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay inGfiling the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. Allowingthe proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated tobe about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuseof the process. It is to be noted that there is no allegation ofimpersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed bythe 2[nd] respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the 2[nd]H

respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending considerationbefore the competent court of law, the 2[nd] respondent cannotpursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving hiscase. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civilnature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2[nd]respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings isnothing but abuse of the process of law. For the aforesaid reasonsthis Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedingsare fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal. [Para 9] [149-F-H;150-A-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 161 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016.

Prashant Bhushan, Omanakuttan K.K., Cheryl D’Souza, Advs.for the Appellant.

Ankit Goel, R.K. Gupta, Sudarshan Rajan, Mahesh Kumar, Md.Quamar Ali, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adfs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused in Complaint CaseNo.708 of 2012, registered in Police Station, Kaimganj, DistrictFarrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offence under Sections 418,419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, aggrieved by an order dated 12[th] March,2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016. By the aforesaid impugnedorder, application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is dismissed by the High Court.

3. We have heard Sri Prashant Bhushan learned counsel assistedby Sri Omanakuttan K.K. and Sri Cheryl D’Souza, Advocates, for theappellant and Sri Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/complainant.

4. The dispute relates to plot No.102 (measuring 0.101 hectare)which has been renumbered as plot No.102/2 situated in Yahiyapur, PostKaimganj, Pargana Kampil, Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, U.P.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AOriginally, the aforesaid plot was owned by the father of the 2[nd]respondent late Faheem Ali Khan and the appellant claims purchase ofsuch plot by sale deed dated 29[th] December, 1993, registered on 5[th]January, 1994. Faheem Ali Khan died on 3[rd] December, 1997 and the2[nd] respondent is one of the heirs of late Faheem Ali Khan. For theproperties which were inherited upon 2[nd] respondent on the death ofBFaheem Ali Khan, mutation was effected on 16[th] November, 1998.

5. The 2[nd] respondent herein has filed Original Suit No.160 of2008 which is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj inFarrukhabad district in case No.160 of 2008. In the above said suit the2[nd] respondent has claimed the following relief:-C

“(A) That the suit of the applicant should be declare by grantingthe permanent injunction against the defendant with the directionsthat the defendant is restrained from illegally and forciblyeverything the applicant from the disputed property or any of itspart and should not interfere with the peaceful ownership andDpossession of the applicant.

(AA) The decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 29/12/1993, which was presented for registration on 25/01/1994 and thephotocopy of which was entered on page number 65 of the bookat people 111-252 at serial number 22 in the office of the subEregistrar Kayamganj in the letter number 1, cover number 1156 atpage number 85/93 at serial number 22 on 20/01/1994, Chileordered against the defendant and in favour of the applicant andthe sub registrar office should be directed to make the entriesaccordingly.

F(B) That the defendant should pay the suit expenses to theapplicant.

(C) That any other relief which is deemed appropriate may begranted to the applicant.”

6. With regard to very same plot, the appellant herein also filed aGsuit in Original Suit No. 474 of 2008 for permanent injunction restrainingthe 2[nd] respondent from demolishing the constructions made by theappellant on the aforesaid plot. The said suit is also pending in CaseNo.474 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj inFarrukhabad district. The aforesaid suits were clubbed and inH

interlocutory applications filed by the parties, a common order to maintainstatus quo in respect of land in dispute was passed. Against the interimorder, matters were carried in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 30 and 27 of2009 filed by the appellant whereas the respondent no.2 had filed MiscAppeal Nos. 28 and 29 of 2009. It is stated that all the said appealswere decided by a common order by the Additional District Judge andapplication for injunction filed by the appellant was allowed and applicationfiled by the 2[nd] respondent was dismissed, against which matters werecarried further by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions which arestated to be pending before the High Court and no interim order ispassed therein.

7. On 10[th] April, 2012, brother of the appellant, Wasim Ali Khanfiled a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the 2[nd] respondentherein alleging that he had stolen the original sale deed from the mutationfile. On 20[th] September, 2012, the 2[nd] respondent has filed a complaintagainst the appellant and Wasim Ali Khan. On such complaint, a casewas registered against the appellant and another for alleged offenceunder Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Initially, the appellantfiled an application for discharge which was rejected. Subsequently, hehas filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the abovesaid proceedings and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate.On such application filed, the impugned order is passed by High Courtrejecting the same.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perusedthe impugned order and other material placed on record.

9. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has purchasedthe plot in question by sale deed dated 29[th] December,1993 which wasregistered on 5[th] January, 1994. The father of the 2[nd] respondent died on3[rd] December, 1997. Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2[nd]respondent filed suit which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in theyear 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaidsale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by makinguse of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner.There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in thesuit filed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is the case of the appellant that eventhe 2[nd] respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Thoughthe suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2[nd] respondent AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahas chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 allegingforgery and impersonation. With regard to the validity of the sale deed,matter is seized up before the competent civil court and it is for the civilcourt to decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, onthe late father of the 2[nd] respondent for obtaining the sale deed. Whenthe very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2[nd] respondentBcannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for allegedoffence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Although,it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent that complaintfiled is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there isno reason for lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The sale deedCon which basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant wasregistered on 5[th] January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years.Even after filing of the suit on 24[th] August, 2008 there is further about 4years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein.Allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated tobe about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of theDprocess. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation andforgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2[nd] respondent. In anyevent, when the suit filed by the 2[nd] respondent for cancellation of saledeed, is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2[nd]respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings byEimproving his case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which areof civil nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2[nd] respondentto pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse ofthe process of law. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the consideredview that the criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed by allowing thisappeal.F

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed andthe impugned order dated 12[th] March, 2018 passed in CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016 by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad is set aside, consequently, the application filedby the appellant under Section 482, Cr.P.C. stands allowed by quashingGthe proceedings in Complaint Case No.708 of 2012 for offence underSections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the file of Police StationKaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and consequential orderspassed by the Magistrate also stand quashed.

H

11. It is made clear that the observations and findings recorded inthis order are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal arising outof application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is open for the civilcourt to decide the various issues in the pending suits on their own merits,uninfluenced by this order.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H