SUBHASH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43337 of 2024

Subhash Yadav
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Anup Kumar Srivastava, Anushriya
                               Tripathi, Ashok Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Arvind Prabodh Dubey, G.A.

Court No. - 82
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri
Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 449 of
2019 (State vs. Shailendra Singh and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 292 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Cantt,
District Gorakhpur as well as summoning order dated 16.02.2019,
passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Gorakhpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/opposite party no. 2
claims to have purchased the disputed property through a registered
sale deed in the year 1991. Thereafter, the said property was
mortgaged with a bank for obtaining a loan, in which the
complainant’s brother stood as guarantor. It is further alleged that the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 executed a registered sale deed in
the year 1998 in respect of half of the said property in favour of his
brother, namely Shailendra. Subsequently, Shailendra is stated to
have sold the said property by way of a sale deed in favour of the
                                                      A482 No. 43337 of 2024
                              2


wife of Subhash Yadav, who obtained a loan of Rs. 35 lakhs on the
strength of the said property. The allegation against the applicant, in
brief, is that he, along with other persons, entered into a criminal
conspiracy and got the disputed property purchased in the name of
his wife.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
is a bona fide purchaser and that the property in dispute was validly
purchased by Shailendra from his brother, Satyendra, through a
registered sale deed. It is further submitted that a civil suit is pending
between Shailendra and Satyendra, who is the brother of the person
from whom the applicant ultimately purchased the property. It is also
contended that the said civil suit was instituted on 30.04.2018, after
an inordinate delay of about 20 years from the alleged execution of
the sale deed dated 23.01.1998. Learned counsel further submits that
the present criminal proceedings have been initiated with the ulterior
motive to harass the applicant. It is further argued that the essential
ingredients of offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are not
prima facie made out in the present case. The applicant has denied
execution of any sale deed dated 01.09.1998 and has asserted that
the said document is false, forged, and fabricated. It is also submitted
that at the relevant time, the original title documents were already
deposited with the bank, rendering the alleged transaction doubtful. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the judgement of Apex court passed in SLP(Crl.)
No. 2682 of 2020 and in SLP(Crl.) No. 10251 of 2019.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. It is
submitted that the complainant had never sold the property in
question to his brother, Shailendra. It is further submitted that the
original sale deed of the said property had been mortgaged with the
                                                       A482 No. 43337 of 2024
                                3


bank for obtaining a loan and the same was returned to the
complainant only in the year 2021, in compliance with the order
passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 9359 of 2018. Learned counsel
has contended that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, it was not possible for the complainant to have
executed any sale deed in respect of the said property. It is further
submitted that the applicant, being fully aware of the aforesaid
circumstances, deliberately proceeded to purchase the property with
the intention of obtaining a loan on its basis. It is lastly submitted that,
on a perusal of the FIR, prima facie ingredients of the alleged
offences are clearly made out against the applicant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.

7. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR was lodged
against the applicant and other persons namely, Sheela Yadav,
Shailendra Yadav, Subhash Yadav and Anit Tiwari for the offences
punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC
and the charge sheet was submitted against Shailendra and Subhash
Yadav for the offences punishable under section 419 and 420 of IPC.
On the perusal of records, it appears that dispute between the parties
primarily relates to title and validity of the sale deeds in respect of the
property in question. It is not in dispute that a civil suit is already
pending between the parties concerning the same property.

8. The contention of the applicant is that he is a bona fide purchaser
and that the chain of title originates from a registered sale deed
executed in the year 1998, whereas the case of the complainant is
that no such sale deed was ever executed and the property remained
mortgaged with the bank during the relevant period.

9. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the scope of
                                                                                          A482 No. 43337 of 2024
                                                                  4


                                    interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent
                                    jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, with
                                    circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations made in the
                                    FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the
                                    commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly
                                    attended with mala fide.

                                    10. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR disclose that the
                                    applicant, in connivance with other accused persons, is alleged to
                                    have participated in a transaction involving disputed property, which
                                    is alleged to be based on forged and fabricated documents, with the
                                    intention to obtain wrongful gain by securing a loan. Whether the sale
                                    deed in question is genuine or forged, whether the complainant had
                                    in fact executed any such document, and whether the applicant had
                                    knowledge of the alleged fraud, are all disputed questions of fact
                                    which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482
                                    Cr.P.C. and require evidence to be led before the trial court.

                                    11. The mere pendency of a civil dispute between the parties does
                                    not ipso facto bar criminal proceedings, particularly when the
                                    allegations in the FIR disclose ingredients of criminal offences. It is
                                    settled law that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed
                                    simultaneously if the allegations disclose both civil liability as well as
                                    criminal culpability.

                                    12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of
                                    the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR, prima
                                    facie, disclose commission of cognizable offences and the case does
                                    not fall within the categories recognized for quashing of proceedings.

                                    13. Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed.

                                    February 24, 2026
                                    v.k. updh.
                                                                                 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)



Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad