Allahabad High Court
HAR SWAROOPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A civil succession dispute that has attained finality cannot be reopened through criminal proceedings, as doing so is an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioner, Har Swaroop, claimed that his uncle fraudulently transferred property that was bequeathed to him under a will, and he sought criminal action under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint after treating it as a protest petition, and the subsequent criminal revision was also dismissed. The respondent argued that the property had already been settled through natural succession in consolidation proceedings, which had attained finality. The High Court held that the succession dispute had been conclusively adjudicated, and re‑litigating it via criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' orders and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil dispute over succession that has been finally adjudicated in consolidation proceedings can be relitigated through criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC.
- Whether instituting a criminal complaint in such circumstances amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 200, 202
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506
Subjects
- succession
- property dispute
- abuse of process
- criminal revision
- consolidation proceedings
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- IPC offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15539 of 2024
Har Swaroop
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar, Sunita Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Satyendra Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for private
respondent and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for State
respondent.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders
dated 06.06.2024 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 2, Amroha in Criminal
Revision No. 32 of 2022 (Har Swaroop Versus State of U.P. and another)
and order dated 03.12.2021 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Amroha in Complaint Case No. 5910 of 2021 (Old No. 865 of 2020), Case
Crime No. 467C of 2014 (Har Swaroop Versus Sukkhan Singh and others)
under Section 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468 I.P.C.., Police Station
Adampur, District-Amroha. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to remand the matter back to pass a fresh order by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Complaint Case No. 5910 of
2021 (Old No. 865 of 2020), Case Crime No. 467C of 2014 (Har Swaroop
Versus Sukkhan Singh and others) under Section 420, 406, 323, 504, 506,
467, 468 I.P.C.., Police Station Adampur, District-Amroha, otherwise
petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or to pass such other
and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
adopted by his uncle, Mangat alias Mangal, to New Delhi, where he resided
for a long time. His uncle, prior to his death, executed a registered Will of
A227 No. 15539 of 2024
2
his property in favour of the petitioner. The respondent, who is also the
uncle of petitioner, allegedly fabricated certain documents and got the
property transferred in his own name. It is further submitted that the
petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the
respondent, which was allowed and a direction to register an FIR was issued
by the learned Magistrate. However, after investigation, a final report was
submitted. Upon filing a protest petition, the same was treated as a complaint
case. After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the
complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 3.12.2021. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.32 of 2022 (
Har Swaroop vs. State of U.P. and another), which too came to be
dismissed. Learned counsel further submitted that the death certificate of the
petitioner's adoptive father was prepared by his uncle; however, he could not
satisfactorily explain how the alleged fabricated documents were used by the
respondent to get the property transferred in his favour.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the
property was mutated in favour of the respondent by way of natural
succession. The matter was contested between the parties during
consolidation proceedings, wherein the petitioner remained unsuccessful. It
is submitted that the consolidation proceedings have attained finality and the
dispute has already been duly adjudicated; hence, the petitioner has no right
to agitate the same issue by initiating criminal proceedings.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, including
the orders passed by the courts below.
6. It is not in dispute that the controversy between the parties has already
been adjudicated during consolidation proceedings. Therefore, raising the
issue of succession by instituting proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
or by pursuing a complaint case amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
7. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the courts below are upheld and
the present petition is dismissed.
May 12, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…