Allahabad High Court
NARESHversusGOPAL AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL
Holding
The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the dispute is civil in nature and dismissed the application for special leave to appeal.
Summary
The applicant sought special leave to appeal a judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that dismissed a criminal complaint alleging conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and offences under Sections 418, 419, 420 and 120B IPC in a land‑title dispute. The dispute concerned Plot No.6/51 claimed by the applicant on the basis of a will, while the respondents alleged that the applicant’s mother had previously sold part of the land and that the will only covered a much smaller area. The trial court held that the matter was essentially a civil dispute over title and measurement, with no dishonest intention at the inception of any transaction, and therefore did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. On review, the High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and legal principles. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The decision reaffirms that land‑title conflicts without criminal intent remain civil matters.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and offences under Sections 418, 419, 420 and 120B IPC are substantiated in the present land‑title dispute.
- Whether the trial court erred in characterising the dispute as civil rather than criminal.
- Whether the High Court should grant special leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 418, 419, 420
Subjects
- land dispute
- title claim
- will deed
- civil vs criminal
- conspiracy
- criminal breach of trust
- Section 378 CrPC
- special leave to appeal
- Sections 418 419 420 120B IPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 199 of 2024
Naresh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Gopal And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sujan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohan Kant Baghel, Pawan
Kumar, Sangam Singh
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Sangam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present application under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been moved
with prayer to grant special leave to appeal to file an appeal against the
impugned judgment and order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.4, Agra in
Complaint Case No.4955/2019 (Naresh Vs. Gopal and others) registered
under Sections 418, 419, 420, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali,
District- Agra.
3. The prosecution case is that, the appellant claims title over plot No.6/51
situated at Heeng Ki Mandi, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Agra on the
basis of will executed by one Premwati, in favour of mother of the
appellant Mrs. Chandrakanta @ Chunna Devi. It is alleged that
neighbouring land plot No.6/50 area 26.5 sq.yd. belongs to respondent
No.1- Gopal.
4. Respondent No.1 Gopal executed a sale-deed in favour of respondent
No.2 Gita Baghel of plot No.6/50 area 74 sq. yd. including 47.5 sq.yd.
land of appellant's plot No.6/51. Respondent No.1- Gopal inherited only
26.5 sq.yd. land of plot No.6/50 from his father Daulatram. Respondent
No.3 and 4 were marginal witnesses of the sale-deed, on this basis
allegations of conspiracy and criminal breach of trust was levelled against
A378 No. 199 of 2024
2
all the respondents.
5. On perusal of materials available on record and on the evidence
collected by the trial court, it has emerged that appellant's mother
Chandrakanta Devi had sold 35 sq. mtr. of land of plot No.6/51 in favour
of one Santosh who was examined as P.W.-2. This fact is admitted by
complainant and his witnesses P.W.-2 Santosh that he has purchased 35
sq. mtr. of land from appellant's mother in plot No.6/51.
6. It is also noteworthy that the will deed produced before the trial court
itself shows transfer of only 29.5 sq mtr. of land and not 88 sq. yd. area of
land as claimed by the appellant.
7. Apart from the said will, there is no material to establish that any
additional land was ever purchased or possessed by the appellant or his
predecessors. The record further reflects that neither the appellant nor his
family members were residing on the disputed property.
8. Learned trial court upon due consideration of the material on record has
rightly held that the dispute even if taken as face value is purely civil in
nature, referring to title and measurement and does not disclose the
essential ingredients of offences under Sections 418, 419, 420, 120B
I.P.C. No dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction has been
made out.
9. At the stage of admission of appeal this Court does not find any
illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the warranting interference.
The findings recorded by the trial court are based on appreciation of
evidence and settled principle of criminal law. Accordingly, the present
application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present application for special leave to appeal is
dismissed.
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
January 29, 2026
P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…