RAM KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

             APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45494 of 2025

Ram Kumar And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :     Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :     G.A., Shiv Sagar Singh

Court No. - 81
                      HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicant for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 26th July, 2023,
cognizance/summoning order dated 11th December, 2023 as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1281 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram
Kumar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1114 of 2022 under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station-Nandgram, District-Ghaziabad,
pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI,
Ghaziabad.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report dated 17th
December, 2022 has been lodged by O.P, no.2/complainant against the nine
named accused persons including the applicants herein by alleging therein
that the informant Anita Sharma, wife of late Dinesh Sharma, resident of Sadiq
Nagar, Sihani, Ghaziabad, alleges that Ram Kumar, Satyapal @ Santu,
Rajveer, Dushyant, Sushil and others conspired to fraudulently sell land in
Khasra No. 748, Village Sadiq Nagar, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District
Ghaziabad, measuring 0.2780 hectare (2780 sq. metres). Out of the total
area, 836 sq. metres was occupied by roads, leaving 1944 sq. metres for
plotting. According to the informant, the respective shares of the alleged
owners were Ram Kumar–324 sq. m., Satyapal–324 sq. m., Rajveer–243 sq.
m., and Dushyant and Sushil–81 sq. m. each. The informant had purchased a
185.79 sq. metre plot from Manju Verma through a registered sale deed dated
28.07.2011. Manju Verma had earlier purchased the said plot from Ram
Kumar, son of Mangat, through a sale deed dated 09.04.2008. The informant
thereafter constructed a boundary wall around the plot. On 25.06.2022, the
informant's son Bhupendra Sharma, Advocate, allegedly found Satyapal, his
                                                           NA528 No. 45494 of 2025
                                  2

son Amit, Ravindra and others attempting to illegally occupy the informant's
plot. On being resisted, they allegedly abused and threatened him. On his
calling 112, the police arrived and took both sides to the police station. Again,
on 05.08.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., the informant allegedly found Ram Kumar,
Satyapal, Rajveer, Dushyant, Sushil, Ravindra, Pradeep Tyagi and Rakesh
attempting to forcibly take possession of her plot. When the informant resisted,
the accused allegedly abused her, threatened to kill her and her son,
threatened to make their bodies disappear, claimed to have influence with
senior police officers, pushed and assaulted her, causing her to fall, and
stated that they had already resold her plot and other vacant plots and would
forcibly take possession thereof. The informant further alleges that, upon
verification from the Registry Office, it was found that Rajveer, Ram Kumar,
Dushyant and Sushil together had ownership of only 729 sq. metres out of the
remaining 1944 sq. metres, whereas they had allegedly prepared and
executed sale deeds relating to plots measuring 1437.65 sq. metres, i.e. land
in excess of their alleged ownership/share.

4. It is specifically alleged that, by fraudulently representing themselves as
owners and preparing/using forged and fabricated documents, the accused
sold land beyond their entitlement, including the informant's plot, thereby
causing wrongful loss to the informant and other purchasers and wrongful gain
to themselves. The informant alleged that the accused were habitual land
fraudsters/land mafias and had previously been involved in similar
transactions. She referred to Case Crime No. 672/2022, Police Station
Nandgram, and Case Crime No. 1583/2017, Police Station Sihani Gate, and
stated that the relevant agreements, documents and evidence would be
supplied to the Investigating Officer. The FIR was ultimately registered against
(i) Ram Kumar, (ii) Rajveer, (iii) Dushyant, (iv) Sushil, (v) Satyapal @ Santu,
(vi) Ravindra, (vii) Pradeep Tyagi, (viii) Rakesh and (ix) Amit, alleging that they
conspired to sell land beyond their ownership by preparing forged/fake
documents, attempted to take forcible possession of the informant's 185.79
sq. metre plot, abused and assaulted the informant and her son, threatened
them with death, and committed obscene acts with the informant.

5. After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation
proceeded and upon completion of the same, the Investigating Officer has
submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant on which the cognizance has
been taken and the applicant has been summoned, hence the present
application has been filed.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the
applicants are innocent. The the allegations made in the present first
information report implicating the applicants with other accused are false and
                                                           NA528 No. 45494 of 2025
                                  3

fabricated. The present first information report lodged by opposite party no.2 is
nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting
the applicants by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous case. The
entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely
a self-made story projected by opposite party no.2.

7. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case itself, it is an
admitted position that the applicants are neither the vendees and nor vendors
in the present case. It is Manju Verma from whom the opposite party
no.2/informant has purchased the land in dispute through a registered sale
deed dated 28.07.2011 and Manju Verma had earlier purchased the said plot
from Ram Kumar, son of Mangat (applicant no.1), through a sale deed dated
09.04.2008. It is then submitted that the informant/opposite party no.2 has
admitted herself in the first information report that she has taken possession
over the land in dispute by making a boundary wall and also she has not
lodged any case against Manju Verma from whom she has purchased the
land in dispute. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submits that even if
the allegations made against the applicants are assumed to be true, they
unmistakably arise out of a civil dispute qua a land, which has been given a
criminal colour. The machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be
misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance.

On the above premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since
the present criminal case gives a criminal colour to a civil dispute the same
cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2
have contented that from the allegations made in the First Information Report
cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. The defence of the
applicants cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the
applicant does not deserve any indulgence. However, they could not dispute
the fact that the present criminal case arises out of a civil dispute between the
parties and the fact that the land in dispute has not been purchased by the
informant/opposite party no.2 from the applicant no.1. The informant has
purchased the said land from Manju Verma.

9. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the records
of the present criminal application.

10. From the version as unfolded in the first information report lodged by
informant/opposite party no.2 and her statement recorded under Section 180
                                                           NA528 No. 45494 of 2025
                                  4

B.N.S.S., it is apparent that a plot area 185.79 square meters has been
purchased by the informant in the year 2011 from Smt. Manju Verma wife of
Raja Verma, who had purchased the said land from applicant no.1 in the year
2008. The dispute arose between the parties is for taking possession over the
said land. It is also admitted that instead of instituting civil proceedings before
the competent court of law for taking possession over the said land, the
informant has engineered the present criminal case implicating the applicants,
who are no concern with the purchase of the said land by the informant. It is
also admitted that the informant has not initiated any proceedings against Smt.
Manju Verma, from whom she has purchased the land in dispute. The entire
fact reveals that civil litigation gives criminal colour by means of the present
criminal case by the informant. In purchase of the said land, the applicants
have not taken any money from the informant for purchase of the said land,
meaning thereby that there is no inducement on the part of the applicants to
deliverer any property decisively. Similarly, the applicants have not fabricated
any documents in sale of the said property to the informant. As such, no case
under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. So
far as the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, no medical
examination report of the injured is on record, therefore, case under Section
323 is also not made out against the applicant. Since no evidence has been
collected by the Investigating Officer regarding offence under Section 354
I.P.C. against the applicants, he has not submitted the charge-sheet in that
section. The present case is a purely civil in nature rather than criminal.

11. The Apex Court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the tendency
to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In Indian Oil Corporation
v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 738, it was held that
criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or
contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process. The
following paragraphs from the decision are apposite:

“9. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the
accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but
without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a
meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process
                                                          NA528 No. 45494 of 2025
                                 5

of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated
with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in
detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is
warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which
are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a
criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not
by (2006) 6 SCC 738 itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The
test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or
not."

10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is
obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.
Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to
irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression
that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there
is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though
criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

12. Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Versus Sate of
Uttranchal & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 has emphasized that
criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or
private vendetta.

13. In Ganga Dhar Kalita Vs. State of Assam reported in (2015) 9 SCC 647
has again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of
                                                                                            NA528 No. 45494 of 2025
                                                                      6

                                    civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil
                                    litigation, constitute an abuse of process.

                                    14. Most recently, in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State
                                    of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 2963 of 2025 decided on 14
                                    th July, 2025: 2025 INSC 869), the Apex Court has disapproved the practice of

                                    using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing that
                                    money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the
                                    dispute is essentially civil.

                                    15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and deliberations, this Court is of the
                                    considered opinion that the present case arises out of a civil dispute qua
                                    taking possession over the land in dispute and for the same dispute the
                                    present criminal case cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed.

                                    16. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1281 of 2023
                                    (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kumar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1114
                                    of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station-Nandgram,
                                    District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior
                                    Division)-VI, Ghaziabad are quashed.

                                    17. The present criminal application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be
                                    no order as to costs.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                                            (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad