SARDAR ALI KHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.

                         [2020] 1 S.C.R. 145                            145


                       SARDAR ALI KHAN                                  A
                                 v.
  THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
        SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2020)                      B
                        JANUARY 24, 2020
           [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
                   R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 418, 419, 420, 467 & 468 and 471 –        C
A plot was owned by the father of the 2nd respondent and appellant
claimed purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29.12.1993 which
was registered on 05.01.1994 – Father of the 2nd respondent died in
the year 1997 – In 2008, the 2nd respondent filed a suit against the
appellant and sought cancellation of sale deed – In 2012, 2 nd
                                                                        D
respondent also filed a complaint against the appellant alleging
offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC – Applications
filed by the appellant for discharge were rejected – Subsequently,
application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the above
proceedings, however, the same was rejected by the High Court –
On appeal, held: The registered sale deed of the property in question   E
was of the year 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit in the year 2008
seeking cancellation of sale deed – There was no allegation of
impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd
respondent – Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd
respondent filed criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery
                                                                        F
and impersonation – When the matter is pending in the Civil Court
regarding the validity of the sale deed, it is for the Civil Court to
decide whether any fraud was played or not by the appellant, on
the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed –
When the same issue was seized up before the Civil Court, the 2nd
respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the               G
appellant for alleged offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471
IPC – Having regard to serious factual disputes which were of civil
nature, for which civil suits were pending, allowing the 2 n d
respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings would
                                                                        H
                                145
146            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     amount to abuse of the process of law – Therefore, criminal
      proceedings quashed.
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
             HELD: At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant
      has purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29 th
B     December,1993 which was registered on 5th January, 1994. The
      father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd December, 1997. Though
      the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit
      which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in the year 2008
      seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid sale
C     deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making
      use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent
      manner. There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of
      signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of
      the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the
      sale deed as a witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008,
D     the 2nd respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint only
      in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With regard
      to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before the
      competent civil court and it is for the civil court to decide whether
      any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on the late father of
E     the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed. When the very
      same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent
      cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for
      alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471
      IPC. Although, it is contended by the 2 nd respondent that
      complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it
F     appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in the
      year 2012. The sale deed on which basis the title and possession
      is claimed by the appellant was registered on 5th January, 1994,
      suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even after filing of the
      suit on 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay in
G     filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. Allowing
      the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to
      be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse
      of the process. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of
      impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by
      the 2nd respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd
H
SARDAR ALI KHAN v. THE STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL                          147
             SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT

respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending consideration           A
before the competent court of law, the 2 nd respondent cannot
pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving his
case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civil
nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2 nd
respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is
                                                                             B
nothing but abuse of the process of law. For the aforesaid reasons
this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings
are fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal. [Para 9] [149-F-H;
150-A-F]
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 161 of 2020.                                                             C

      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
5684 of 2016.
       Prashant Bhushan, Omanakuttan K.K., Cheryl D’Souza, Advs.             D
for the Appellant.
    Ankit Goel, R.K. Gupta, Sudarshan Rajan, Mahesh Kumar, Md.
Quamar Ali, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adfs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                             E
      R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused in Complaint Case
No.708 of 2012, registered in Police Station, Kaimganj, District
Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offence under Sections 418,
419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, aggrieved by an order dated 12th March,
                                                                             F
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016. By the aforesaid impugned
order, application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is dismissed by the High Court.
      3. We have heard Sri Prashant Bhushan learned counsel assisted
by Sri Omanakuttan K.K. and Sri Cheryl D’Souza, Advocates, for the           G
appellant and Sri Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/
complainant.
      4. The dispute relates to plot No.102 (measuring 0.101 hectare)
which has been renumbered as plot No.102/2 situated in Yahiyapur, Post
Kaimganj, Pargana Kampil, Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, U.P.        H
148            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     Originally, the aforesaid plot was owned by the father of the 2 nd
      respondent late Faheem Ali Khan and the appellant claims purchase of
      such plot by sale deed dated 29th December, 1993, registered on 5th
      January, 1994. Faheem Ali Khan died on 3rd December, 1997 and the
      2nd respondent is one of the heirs of late Faheem Ali Khan. For the
      properties which were inherited upon 2nd respondent on the death of
B
      Faheem Ali Khan, mutation was effected on 16th November, 1998.
             5. The 2nd respondent herein has filed Original Suit No.160 of
      2008 which is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in
      Farrukhabad district in case No.160 of 2008. In the above said suit the
      2nd respondent has claimed the following relief:-
C
            “(A) That the suit of the applicant should be declare by granting
            the permanent injunction against the defendant with the directions
            that the defendant is restrained from illegally and forcibly
            everything the applicant from the disputed property or any of its
            part and should not interfere with the peaceful ownership and
D           possession of the applicant.
            (AA) The decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 29/12/
            1993, which was presented for registration on 25/01/1994 and the
            photocopy of which was entered on page number 65 of the book
            at people 111-252 at serial number 22 in the office of the sub
E           registrar Kayamganj in the letter number 1, cover number 1156 at
            page number 85/93 at serial number 22 on 20/01/1994, Chile
            ordered against the defendant and in favour of the applicant and
            the sub registrar office should be directed to make the entries
            accordingly.
F           (B) That the defendant should pay the suit expenses to the
            applicant.
            (C) That any other relief which is deemed appropriate may be
            granted to the applicant.”
              6. With regard to very same plot, the appellant herein also filed a
G
      suit in Original Suit No. 474 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining
      the 2nd respondent from demolishing the constructions made by the
      appellant on the aforesaid plot. The said suit is also pending in Case
      No.474 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in
      Farrukhabad district. The aforesaid suits were clubbed and in
H
SARDAR ALI KHAN v. THE STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL                             149
   SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

interlocutory applications filed by the parties, a common order to maintain     A
status quo in respect of land in dispute was passed. Against the interim
order, matters were carried in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 30 and 27 of
2009 filed by the appellant whereas the respondent no.2 had filed Misc
Appeal Nos. 28 and 29 of 2009. It is stated that all the said appeals
were decided by a common order by the Additional District Judge and
                                                                                B
application for injunction filed by the appellant was allowed and application
filed by the 2nd respondent was dismissed, against which matters were
carried further by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions which are
stated to be pending before the High Court and no interim order is
passed therein.
       7. On 10th April, 2012, brother of the appellant, Wasim Ali Khan         C
filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the 2nd respondent
herein alleging that he had stolen the original sale deed from the mutation
file. On 20th September, 2012, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint
against the appellant and Wasim Ali Khan. On such complaint, a case
was registered against the appellant and another for alleged offence            D
under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Initially, the appellant
filed an application for discharge which was rejected. Subsequently, he
has filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the above
said proceedings and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate.
On such application filed, the impugned order is passed by High Court
rejecting the same.                                                             E

      8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused
the impugned order and other material placed on record.
        9. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has purchased
the plot in question by sale deed dated 29th December,1993 which was            F
registered on 5th January, 1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on
3rd December, 1997. Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd
respondent filed suit which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in the
year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid
sale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making
use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner.      G
There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the
suit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the appellant that even
the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though
the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2 nd respondent
                                                                                H
150             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 alleging
      forgery and impersonation. With regard to the validity of the sale deed,
      matter is seized up before the competent civil court and it is for the civil
      court to decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on
      the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed. When
      the very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent
B
      cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged
      offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Although,
      it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that complaint
      filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there is
      no reason for lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The sale deed
C     on which basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant was
      registered on 5th January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years.
      Even after filing of the suit on 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4
      years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein.
      Allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to
      be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the
D
      process. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation and
      forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. In any
      event, when the suit filed by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of sale
      deed, is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2 nd
      respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by
E     improving his case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are
      of civil nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd respondent
      to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of
      the process of law. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered
      view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed by allowing this
      appeal.
F
             10. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and
      the impugned order dated 12th March, 2018 passed in Criminal
      Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016 by the High Court of
      Judicature at Allahabad is set aside, consequently, the application filed
      by the appellant under Section 482, Cr.P.C. stands allowed by quashing
G     the proceedings in Complaint Case No.708 of 2012 for offence under
      Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the file of Police Station
      Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and consequential orders
      passed by the Magistrate also stand quashed.

H
SARDAR ALI KHAN v. THE STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL                              151
   SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

       11. It is made clear that the observations and findings recorded in       A
this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal arising out
of application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is open for the civil
court to decide the various issues in the pending suits on their own merits,
uninfluenced by this order.
                                                                                 B
Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                 C




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H