GAJENDR PRATAP ALIAS SURENDRA PRATAP AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9076 of 2020

Gajendr Pratap Alias Surendra Pratap And 6
Others                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Dinesh Kacker, Jitendra Kumar
                               Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Naveen Sinha assisted by Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned counsel
for the applicants, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.
968 of 2020 (State v. Smt. Sunaina Singh and Others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 160 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 417, 506, 465,
120 - B IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi as well as summoning
order dated 17.01.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
3. The prosecution case is that the applicants and other accused persons by
indulging into criminal conspiracy and forgery got prepared deeds of transfer
by which the piece of land as alleged to have been earmarked as park and
also piece of land of pathway got transferred in favour of Virendra Pratap
Singh, applicant no. 4.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that plot no. 300
measuring area 1.03 Acres, situated at Mauja Shivpur, District Varanasi
originally belonged to family member of applicants who were co-holder
thereon. It is submitted that pursuant to the agreement executed in the year
1982 by uncle of applicant nos. 1 to 3. The said land was divided in several
residential plots and 16 plots were carved out and the same were sold in the
year of 1983. It is further contended that small piece of land remained unsold
due to zig-zag shape and the same is continue to remain in the holding of co-
sharers. He further submitted that all the 16 plots were sold out and the
remaining land has been earmarked as park. He further submitted that a
family settlement executed regarding the remaining piece of land that was
                                                           A482 No. 9076 of 2020
                                2

left out from the sale transactions. The remaining land is in the share of
applicant no. 1 and 2 who specifically transferred part of said land through
the registered sale deed dated 05.05.2018 in favour of Trust namely Triveni
Singh Memorial Trust through its trustee (applicant no. 4). It is further
argued that applicants have not transferred any portion of 30 wide pathway
for use of plot holder. The present dispute only relates to the allegation that
applicants have encroached open said pathway. It is further submitted that a
civil dispute respect to the use of pathway and possession of land are already
pending between the parties before the competent civil court. Learned
counsel submits that the applicants thus executed the transfer deed of the
said property claimed by them, thus, the offences punishable under Section
467, 468 IPC prima facie are not made out. It is further submitted that a
criminal proceedings is to be initiated only to give a criminal colour of civil
dispute. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of
Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer
for quashing the proceeding and submitted that the allegation in the FIR
and the material collected during investigation disclose commission of
cognizance offence and, therefore, the proceeding could not be interfered at
this stage.
6. From perusal of records, it appears that the dispute between the parties
initially relates to encroachment over the piece of land which claimed by
informant to be a park and pathway for the plot holders. From the perusal of
the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses namely
Rajesh Verma, it transpires that civil proceedings between the parties,
concerning the same subject matter, are already pending before the
competent court. The existence of such civil proceedings further fortifies the
conclusion that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. This Court further
finds that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value
and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of offence
of forgery so as to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
7. Forgery is sine-qua-non of offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Preparation of false document or false electronic record or part thereof is
condition precedent for offence of forgery. Making of false document is
defined under section 464 IPC. The said section 464 demonstrates that a
person is said to have made false document if;
(a) he executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by
someone else; or
(b) he altered and tempered a document; or
(c) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in
                                                                 A482 No. 9076 of 2020
                                    3

control of his faculties.
The basic ingredients of forgery are:
(1) the making of a false document or part of it and
(2) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the section,
viz, (a) to cause damage or infringe to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b)
to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property,
or (d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e)
to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
8. The core issue, therefore, pertains to determination of civil rights, namely
title, possession, and easementary rights, which can only be effectively
adjudicated upon by a competent civil court after appreciation of evidence. It
is well settled that such disputed questions of fact, particularly relating to
land and easementary rights, do not ordinarily fall within the ambit of
criminal jurisdiction. It is also a settled principle of law that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent abuse of
the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. Where the criminal
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or to exert pressure in a civil
dispute, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers
to quash such proceedings. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the
criminal proceedings have been initiated to give a colour of criminality to
what is essentially a civil dispute relating to land and alleged right of user.
Permitting such proceedings to continue would result in miscarriage of
justice and abuse of the process of the Court.

9. In the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 513] the Apex Court has observed as under:

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a
cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies
available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal
of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

10. In the case of the Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751,
the Apex Court ha held as under:
"16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed
claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale
deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered
by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a
                                                                                                      A482 No. 9076 of 2020
                                                                        4

                                    document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The
                                    first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second
                                    is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he
                                    knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”,
                                    it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or
                                    fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the
                                    intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or
                                    by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not
                                    made or executed.
                                    17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he
                                    is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by
                                    someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some
                                    property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined
                                    under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no
                                    forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code
                                    are attracted."

                                    11. Considering the nature of the dispute and the law laid down by the
                                    Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted cases, this Court is of the view,
                                    the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
                                    deserves to be allowed.
                                    12. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 968 of 2020 (State v. Smt.
                                    Sunaina Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2019,
                                    under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 417, 506, 465, 120 - B IPC, Police
                                    Station Sigra, District Varanasi as well as summoning order dated
                                    17.01.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, is hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    March 13, 2026
                                    v.k. updh.
                                                                                          (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




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