Shiv Shanker Prasad, J
1. Heard Mr. Satendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 727 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant to quash the charge-sheet No. 58 of 2022 dated 10.04.2022, cognizance/ summoning order dated 14.04.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 517 of 2022 (State Vs. Nasir Khan), arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur.
AND
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27887 of 2022 has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 16th July, 2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2537 of 2022 (Nihaluddin Vs. Nasir Khan & Others), under Sections 417, 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur.
3. Since the issue and laws on the subject are similar and identical, both the applications have been clubbed together and are finally decided by means of this common judgment. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 727 of 2023 is being treated to be the leading case in which affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Version as unfolded in the FIR
4. The present criminal case borne out from a first information report lodged by Nihal-uddin Khan i.e. opposite party no.2 on 4th July, 2021 at 2357 hours against as many as 23 accused persons including the applicants. In the said FIR, it has been alleged that mother of the informant namely Raees Jahan Begum was having 14 Bigha land situated at Mohalla Culcutta, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, which was obtained by her through registered sale deed dated 25.06.1966. She died on 01.11.2015 and after her death her sons namely Alauddin, Haseemuddin and Nihaluddin (informant) have become the owners of the said land. It is alleged that taking advantage of the helplessness of the informant, the applicant after committing criminal conspiracy with the help of others obtained forged and fabricated power of attorney by one Sabir Khan but the applicants and their mother had not sold the said land. Sabir Khan died on 17.09.2004 and after his death the Power of Attorney became invalid. But the applicant has executed sale deeds on 25.07.2018, 28.02.2011, 13.05.2013, 26.07.2016, 17.01.2017, 28.03.2013, 17.02.2016 and the same are illegal and the persons concerned are trying to get possessions for which an application was given to the District Magistrate and an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 39 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. was lodged against the applicant. The applicant has threatened the informant hence the present F.I.R. has been lodged.
Case of the Applicant
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident was occurred on 18.05.2021, whereas the first information report has been lodged after two months of the incident i.e. 04.07.2021 and there is no plausible explanation about the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.
6. After lodging of the aforesaid FIR, the investigation proceeded and the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has reiterated same version as unfolded in the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of formal witnesses, namely, Constable Sushil Kumar, S.I. Raees Ahmad, S.I. Vishwabandhu, S.I. Dharmendra Singh, Dr. Vivekanand (Executive Officer), Premendra Singh (Lekhpal) and Kaushal Dixit (Sub Registrar) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have not supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. After conclusion of the statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer on 10.04.2022 submitted the charge-sheet No. 58 of 2022 against the applicant under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C. and upon submission of the same, on 14.04.2022 learned A.C.J.M.-I has taken cognizance. upon the same.
7. Earlier with regard to the same allegation, opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been registered as Misc. Case No. 181/11 of 2019 (Nihaluddin Vs. Mohd. Akbar and others), which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 14th August, 2019 on the ground that since opposite party no.2 has not produced any document from which can be ascertained as to whose name has been recorded in the records of Nagar Palika over the land in dispute. It has also been recorded by the court below that in the police record it has been mentioned that a civil suit is pending between the parties and such fact has also been accepted by opposite party no.2 during the course of argument. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the court below has opined that the application under Section 156 (3) has only been made to exert pressure upon the applicant. The court below has not found any merit in the said application filed by opposite party no.2 and ultimately rejected the same.
8. After dismissal of the aforesaid application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 156 (3), an FIR being Case Crime No. 39 of 2020 under Section 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant wherein nearly same allegations have been made against him due to land in question. In the said case, after investigation, final report has been submitted against the applicant and no protest petition was filed till date.
9. After failing twice in initiating false and frivolous criminal cases against the applicant, opposite party no.2 lodged the present FIR and thereafter he has also filed a complaint being Complaint Case No. 2537 of 2021 (Nihaluddin Vs. Nasir Khan), under Section 417, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. on false and frivolous allegations. The proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case were challenged by the applicant before this Court by means of connected application being Application U/s 482 No. 27887 of 2022 (Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein this Court vide order dated 20.10.2022 has stayed the further proceeding against the applicant.
10. For ready reference, order of this Court dated 20th October, 2022 is being quoted herein-below:
"Sri Satendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 is successful to initiate the criminal proceedings against the applicant despite earlier two attempts were rejected that is an application under Section 156 Cr.P.C. submitted by the opposite party no.2 was rejected by an order dated 14.8.2019 where allegations were made of committing forgery. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 for offence under Section 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC in regard to an alleged incident occurred on 25.9.2019 and after investigation final report was submitted and as per instruction, till date no protest petition has been filed. Thereafter the present proceedings were initiated by way of filing a criminal complaint on 19.3.2020 making an allegation in the incident occurred on 13.9.2021 wherein after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. applicants are summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the facts of the present case squarely fall under paragraph no.102 Sub Paragraph No.7 of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 AIR 604 SC.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date. Steps of service be taken within ten days.
Put up this case as fresh on the date fixed in the notice.
Further proceedings pursuant to Complaint Case No.2537 of 2021 (Nihaluddin vs. Nasir Khan and others) under Section 417, 452, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur shall remain stayed for a period of four weeks only."
11. It is submitted that under the Right to Information Act, an information was sought by the applicant from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur whether the name of mother of opposite party no.2, namely, Raees Jahan or opposite party no.2 Nihal-uddin has ever been recorded over the land in question in the relevant records or not, he has been informed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur that no such name has been recorded over the land in question.
12. The land in question was belonging to one Hakeem Nabi Ahmad, who has given the said land to Sabir Khan in the year 1957, therefore, he became the owner of the said land. Sabir Khan has executed Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant on 12.03.1997 authorizing him to deliver all rights, a copy of the Hindi translation from Urdu deed executed by Hakeem Nabi Ahmad in favour of Sabir Ali has been enclosed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit accompanying the present application whereas the copy of the registration of the said power of attorney has been enclosed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit accompanying the present application.
13. On 3rd February, 2019 for the same land dispute, opposite party no.2 and his brothers, namely, Allah-uddin, Haseen-uddin have a civil suit against as many as 185 persons including the applicant in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur bearing Original Suit No. 72 of 2019 (Nihal-uddin & Others Vs. Mohd. Ahmad Khan & Others), for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to the said suit from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the said suit over the land in question, a copy of the plaint of the said suit has been enclosed as Annexure No.10 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. The said suit is still pending.
The case of opposite party no.2 as per the counter affidavit filed on his behalf:
14. Mrs. Sarvari Begum wife of Mohd. Ali Khan, who was the maternal grand-mother (Nani) of opposite party no.2 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of mother of opposite party no.2, namely Mrs. Raees Jahan Begum on 27th June, 1966, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-C.A.-3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. After the death of his mother, names of opposite party no.2 and his two brothers were entered into the records of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur.
15. Submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant
(i) There is delay of nearly two months in lodging of FIR for the alleged incident but no plausible explanation has been given.
(ii) This is case of no injury nor any medical examination report qua any injured or the part of the case diary has been bought on record.
(iii) On being unsuccessful twice in initiating criminal proceedings against the applicant, Opposite party no.2 has lodged the present FIR only in order to exert pressure upon him on false and frivolous allegations, when as a matter of fact for the dispute of same land, he has already filed a civil suit in the year 2019 against the applicants and others.
(iv) The alleged incident dated 18th May, 2021 as has been mentioned in the FIR has never occurred and all the allegations mentioned therein are wholly false and concocted.
(v) The present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 against the applicant is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name 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.
(vi) The case in hand is purely civil nature and by the present F.I.R. an attempt has been made to enforce the memorandum of understanding by giving criminal colour. In support of his submission he has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph-47 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 5298.
(vii) The applicant has not committed any forgery nor he has cheated anyone nor he has manufactured any forged documents.
(viii) The Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of any family member of opposite party no.2 and only recording the statement of opposite party no.2 he has submitted the impugned charge-sheet against the applicant without collecting any material evidence against the applicant.
(ix) The judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 has been referred for drawing the attention of the Court to the issue that in several categories of cases, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court for quashing the malicious proceedings. The case of the applicant is covered with the seventh category mentioned in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra).
(x) The averments made in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the applicant has four criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one is absolutely incorrect. Only three cases are against the applicant, which have been initiated by opposite party no.2 in order to exert pressure upon him for resolving the dispute giving rise to the civil proceedings initiated by him. In case crime no. 39 of 2020 lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant, final report has been submitted by the police before the court concerned and opposite party no.2 has not filed any protest petition against the same, the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2537 of 2022 initiated by opposite party no.2 have already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20th October, 2022 in connected application being Application No. 27887 of 2022, whereas case crime no. 130 of 2021 is present one, proceedings of which are under challenge in the leading application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submitted that the present criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants are not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He also submits that it is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings.
18. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one and he is habitual offender in grabbing various properties.
19. He also submits that the alleged power of attorney dated 12th March, 1997 executed in favour of applicant, namely, Nasir Khan by Sabir Khan is a forged and fabricated document. In order to grab the property the applicant has got prepared the same. Neither the name of Sabir Khan nor the name of the applicant has ever recorded in the records of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur over the land in dispute.
On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 urge that offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of both the applications.
21. It is not in dispute that the dispute arose between the parties is for 14 bighas land situated at Mohalla-Culcutta, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Rampur. It is also an admitted position that for permanent injunction and proclamation over the said land, opposite party no.2 and his two brothers have filed civil suit on 3rd February, 2019 before the court being Original Suit No. 72 of 2019 (Nihal-uddin & Others Vs. Mohd. Ahmad Khan & Others), which is pending consideration. It is therefore, necessary for this Court to refer the averments and the prayer made by opposite party no.2 along with his two brothers in the plaint, which are being quoted herein-below:
उपरोक्त वाद में वादीगण निम्नलिखित निवेदन करते हैं-
"1. यहकि वादीगण आपस में सगे भाई है तथा वादपत्र के अन्त में वर्णित भूमि स्थित मौ० कलकत्ता तहसील सदर जिला रामपुर, जिसे वादपत्र के साथ संलग्न नक्शे में लाल रंग, हरे रंग तथा पीले रंग से प्रदर्शित किया गया है, के मालिक व काबिज है।
2. यहकि वादीगण की माता श्रीमति रईस जहॉ बेगम पत्नी श्री जमालुद्दीन निवासनी मौ० कलकत्ता तहसील सदर जिला रामपुर में स्थित भूमि जिसे वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न मानाचित्र में प्रदर्शित किया गया है, की मालिक व काबिज थी। उक्त सम्पत्ति में से 14 बीघा पुख्ता भूमि श्रीमति रईस जहॉ बेगम ने श्रीमति सरवरी बेगम से विक्रय पत्र दिनॉकी 25.0.1966के द्वारा खरीदी थी। श्रीमति सरवरी बेगम श्रीमति रईस जहाँ बेगम की माता थी। श्रीमति सरवरी बेगम ने अपनी बेटी के हक में जिस 14 पुख्ता भूमि का वयनामा दिनॉक 25.06.1966 को निष्पादित किया था वह भूमि श्रीमति सरवरी बेगम ने विक्रय पत्र दिनॉक 6.11.1931 के द्वारा मकबूल हुसैन खा आदि से खरीदी थी। इस 1931 के विक्रय पत्र का उपनिबंधक कार्यालय में आग लगने के बाद पुनः इन्द्राज भी हुआ है। इस विक्रय पत्र द्वारा क्रय की गयी भूमि से उत्तर में भी श्रीमति सरवरी बेगम की अन्य भूमि लगभग 50 बीघा खाम थी। यह भूमि भी सरवरी बेगम की मृत्यु के उपरान्त श्रीमति रईस जहाँ बेगम को विरासत में मिली। सरवरी बेगम को उक्त 50 बीघा खाम भूमि उनके पति श्री दूल्हा खाँ से विरासत में मिली थी, जोकि दूल्हा खां की दादालाही भूमि थी।
3. यहकि उपरोक्त वर्णित प्रकार से श्रीमति रईस जहाँ बेगम को 14 बीघा पुख्ता अर्थात 70 बीघा खाम विक्रय पत्र दिनॉक 27.06.1966 के आधार पर तथा 50 बीघा खाम विरासत में प्राप्त हुयी। इस प्रकार श्रीमति रईस जहाँ बेगम की मो० कलकत्ता में कुल 120 बीघा खाम भूमि थी। मो० कलकत्ता में अधिकतर भूमि श्रीमति रईस जहाँ की ही थी। यह भूमि श्रीमति रईस जहाँ के स्वर्गवास पर उनके पुत्रों वादीगण को विरासतन प्राप्त हुयी ।
4. यहकि वर्ष 1931 के विक्रय पत्र के द्वारा सरवरी बेगम द्वारा खरीदी गयी सम्पत्ति की सीमायें उक्त विक्रयपत्र में निम्नप्रकार लिखी है-
1. पूर्व - रास्ता व आराजी अर्जुन मिल्कीयत जोजा हकीम
फखरूददीन व खेत अली खाँ
पश्चिम - तालाब व खेत सरवरी फखरूद्दीन
अली जान
उत्तर - आराजी व कब्जा फखरुद्दीन
दक्षिण - कब्रस्तान व खेत बुद्धन खा
2. पूर्व - खेत अम्मन खाँ
पश्चिम - रास्ता व खेत सरवरी
उत्तर - कब्रस्तान
दक्षिण - नाला सरकारी
5. यहकि वर्ष 1966 के जिस विक्रय पत्र से श्रीमति रईस जहाँ न सम्पत्तिःखरीदी उस बयनामें के समय मौके पर हुये परिवर्तनों के कारण विक्रय पत्र में निम्नलिखित सीमाओं का उल्लेख है-
क. पूर्व - रास्ता व आराजी खेत अर्जुन।
पश्चिम - नाला संरकारी
उत्तर - आराजी अर्जुन मकानात बागवान
दक्षिण - कब्रस्तान
ख. पूर्व - आराजी खेत अर्जुन
पश्चिम - नाला
उत्तर - आराजी खेत
दक्षिण - आराजी सरवरी
6. यहकि लम्बी अवधि में परिवर्तन होता रहा कुल विवादित भूमि की वर्तमान स्थिति वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न नक्शे में प्रदर्शित है। विवादित भूमि का रोमपुर नगर पालिका परिषद रामपुर के अभिलेखों में प्लॉट स० 1808, 1809, 1010, 1811 1812, 1813, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293 294 295, 296, 297, 298, 326, 1687, 1688, 1651,1653,1654अंकित है।
7. यहकि वर्ष 1931 के विक्रय पत्र व 1966 के विक्रय पत्र में सम्पत्ति की दो सीमाये दी गयी है। एक सीमा की सम्पत्ति को मानचित्र में हरे रंग तथा दूसरी सीमा की सम्पत्ति को पीले रंग से तथा सरवरी बेगम से राईस जहाँ को विरासत में मिली सम्पति को लाल रंग से प्रदर्शित किया गया है।
8. यहकि रईस जहाँ बेगम को ही कुछ भूमि को सम्मिलित करते हुये सरकार द्वारा आसरा कॉलोनी, पानी की टंकी का निर्माण कर लिया गया तथा कुछ भाग पर मन्दिर व स्कूल बन गया। उक्त सम्पत्ति के सम्बन्ध मैं प्रस्तुत बाद में वादीगण कोई विवाद नही कर रहे है तथा उसे सलग्न मानचित्र में प्रदर्शित किया गया है। यह सम्पत्ति प्रस्तुत बाद में विवादित नहीं है। इस सम्पत्ति के सम्बन्ध मे वादीगण सम्बन्धित व्यक्तियों / सरकार के विरूद्ध अलग से कार्यवाही करेंगे।
9. यह कि श्रीमति रईस जहाँ ने अपने जीवनकाल में अपनी सम्मति में से कुछ सम्पत्ति विक्रय पत्रों के द्वारा बेच दी। उनकी मृत्यु पर विरासतन प्राप्त हुयी सम्पत्ति में से एक भूखण्ड वादी स० 1 व 2 द्वारा विक्रय किया गया बेची गयी सम्पत्ति का विवरण वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची क 'ट' मे वर्णित है तथा बेची गयी सम्पत्ति को वाद पत्र के साथ सलग्न नक्शे में नीले रंग से प्रदर्शित किया गया है--
10. यहकि श्रीमति रईस जहाँ की उक्त सम्पत्ति के सम्बन्ध में उनके जीवनकाल में काफी विवाद भी चला। तुलाराम, रोशनलाल व छोलीराम ने श्रीमति रईस जहाँ बेगम से 919 वर्ग मीटर आराजी खरीदने का इकरारनामा मुआयदावय प्रदर्शित करते हुये एक वाद मूलवाद स० 26/198 तुलाराम आदि प्रति श्रीमति रईस जहाँ योजित किया, जिसमें श्रीमति रईस जहाँ द्वारा उक्त इकरारनामें को घोखाधड़ी के आधार पर निष्पादित होना कहा गया तथा यह भी उल्लेख किया कि श्रीमति रईस जहाँ ने तीन विक्रय पत्रों दिनॉकी 13.11.1986 के द्वारा मसरूर फाल्ना बेगम को 100 गज आराजी ,नन्ही बेगम को 100 वर्गगज आराजी तथा विक्रय पत्र दिनॉकी: 23.11.1986 के द्वारा श्रीमति रहमत जहाँ बेगम को 100 वर्गगज भूमि बेच दी है अन्त में उक्त दावा खारिज हो गया।
11. यहकि श्रीमति रईस जहॉ बहुत सम्पन्न महिला थी। इस कारण विभिन्न व्यक्ति समय-समय पर उनकी सम्पत्ति हडपने का प्रयास करते रहते थे। श्रीमति रईस जहाँ ने विवादित सम्पत्ति पर समय-समय पर मकानात आदि का निर्माण भी किया था।
12. यहकि श्रीमति रईस जहाँ का दिनांक 1.11.2015 को स्वर्गवास हो गया। वादी स० 1 निहालुद्दीन श्रीनगर में कारोबार करते है जबकि वादी स० 2 व 3 दिल्ली में कारोबार करते हैं तथा वादीगण की माता अधिकतर अपने पुत्रों के साथ दिल्ली में रहती थी इसी बात का अबैध लाभ उठाते हुये प्रतिवादीगण स० 1 ता 4 व 10 ने आपस में साजिश करके वादीगण की सम्पत्ति को धोखाधडी व चार सौ बीसी के आधार पर विभिन्न व्यक्तियों के नाम विक्रय पत्र करना प्रारम्भ कर दिये जबकि प्रतिवादीगण स० 1 ता 4 व 10 का विवादित सम्पत्ति के स्वामित्व व कब्जे से कोई सम्बन्ध नही था। प्रतिवादी स० 10 ने स्वयं को साबिर खाँ का मुख्यार प्रदर्शित करते हुये वयनामे किये गये। जबकि साबिर खाँ का भी विवादित सम्पत्ति के कब्जे व स्वामित्व से कोई सम्बन्ध नही था। यह महत्वपूर्ण है कि प्रश्नगत वयनामो में भी यह उल्लेख नही है कि प्रतिवादीगण स० 1 व साबिर खाँ तथा प्रतिवादी सo 10 के पास उक्त सम्पत्ति किस आधार पर आयी है। मौके पर वादीगण का ही कब्जा व दखल है। वादीगण द्वारा कराया गया कुछ निर्माण मौके पर मौजूद है। वादीगण की माँ ने अपने जीवनकाल में विवादित भूमि की प्लॉटिंग करने हेतु कुछ रास्ते बनाये थे जोकि मौके पर मौजूद हैं। श्रीमति रईस जहाँ ने कुछ सम्पत्ति अपने जीवनकाल में बेच दी थी जिसका विवरण पूर्व में दिया जा चुका है। शेष सम्पत्ति वादीगण की है तथा किसी अन्य का उक्त सम्पत्ति पर कोई कब्जा व अधिकार नही है।
13यहकि वादीगण की सम्पत्ति में नये नाले का निर्माण नगरपालिका परिषद रामपुर द्वारा कुछ वर्ष पूर्व किया गया। उक्त नालों से वादीगण को भी लाभ था इस कारण वादीगण ने उक्त नालों के निर्माण में कोई आपत्ति नही की।
14 . यहकि वादीगण ने उपनिबन्धक कार्यालय, तहसील सदर जिला रामपुर में निरीक्षण कराया तो पता लगा कि वादीगण की अनुपस्थिति में तथा श्रीमति रईस जहाँ की वृद्धावस्था व अशिक्षित होने का प्रतिवादीगण ने लाभ उठाया है तथा वास्तविक स्वामियों की बिना सहमति व जानकारी के सम्पत्ति के बयनामें करा दिये, जिसका प्रतिवादीगण को कोई अधिकार नही था।
15 यहकि निरीक्षण से वादीगण को विवादित भूमि के जो विक्रय पत्र प्राप्त हुये उनका विवरण वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची "ख" में वर्णित है। यह सभी विक्रय पत्र वादीगण की विवादित सम्पत्ति से सम्बन्धित है तथा शून्य व निष्प्रभावी है। विक्रय पत्रों का ज्ञान वादीगण को लगभग । वर्ष पूर्व हुआ है। मुआयना करने व नकले प्राप्त करने में तथा विवादित भूमि का नक्शा बनवाने में वादीगण को काफी समय लग गया वादीगण अपनी ओर से कोई देर किये बिना प्रस्तुत वाद वास्ते उद् घोषणा व स्थाई निषेधाज्ञा दायर कर रहे है।
16. यहकि वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची 'ख' में वर्णित सभी बयनामें निःशून्य व निष्प्रभावी एंव अवैध है। उक्त विक्रय पत्रों के आधार पर प्रतिवादीगण को विवादित सम्पत्ति में कोई हक व अधिकार प्राप्त नही होते है। प्रश्नगत विक्रय पत्रों के अस्तित्व में रहने से वादीगण के अधिकारों पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ने का खतरा है।
17. यहकि प्रतिवादीगण मौके पर विवादित सम्पत्ति पर कब्जा करके निर्माण कर लेने हेतु प्रयासरत है पिछले 3 माह से प्रतिवादीगण व वादीगण का इस सम्बन्ध में विवाद चल रहा है। वादीगण ने पुलिस की सहायता से प्रतिवादीगण को मौके पर कब्जा कर निर्माण करने से रोका है किन्तु वादीगण की उपस्थिति में दिनांक 22.03.2019 को कुछ प्रतिवादीगण मौके पर आ गये तथा उन्होने कहा कि जैसे ही तुम लोग रामपुर से अपने काम पर वापस जाओगे तो हम मौके पर जाकर कब्जा कर लेगे ऐसी स्थिति में वादीगण के पास प्रस्तुत वाद वास्ते उद्घोषणा व निषेधाज्ञा "दायर करने के अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई विकल्प नही है।
18. यहकि प्रतिवादी सईद अहमद द्वारा विवादित सम्पत्ति के एक भाग को शौकत अली से प्राप्त होना कहकर एक निषेधाज्ञा का वाद मूलवाद स० 96 / 2018 सईद अहमद प्रति अलाउद्दीन आदि वादीगण के विरूद्ध योजित किया गया वाद में प्रतिवादीगण (प्रस्तुत वाद के वादी) द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया तथा सिविल जज (कनिष्ठ खण्ड) रामपुर द्वारा आदेश दिनॉकी 1.10.2018 से उक्त सईद अहमद का स्वामित्व ना मानते हुये उनका निषेधाज्ञा प्रार्थना पत्र निरस्त कर दिया गया।
19 यह यदि प्रतिवादीगण को मौके पर कब्जा करने से व निर्माण करने से नही रोका गया तो वादीगण की अपूर्णनीय क्षति होगी तथा मौके की स्थिति परिवर्तित हो जायेगी एवं अनावश्यक मुकदमेबाजी भी प्रारम्भ हो जायेगी।
20. यहकि प्रतिवादीगण स० 10 द्वारा स्वयं को साबिर खां का मुख्तारेआम प्रदर्शित करते हुये विक्रय पत्र निष्पादित किये गये हैं जबकि साबिर अली का नासिर खां से कोई रिश्ता नही था कथित मुख्तारनामा भी जाली व फर्जी अभिलेख है। प्रतिवादीगण स० 5 ता 7 साबिर खॉ के वारिसान है। साबिर खाँ का विवादित सम्पत्ति में कोई स्वामीत्व हक व अधिकार व कव्जा नहीं था इस कारण उन्हें विवादित सम्पत्ति के सम्बन्ध में किसी को अपना मुख्तार बनाने का कोई अधिकार नही था।
21 यहकि मौ० शाकिर के पक्ष में एक विक्रय पत्र निष्पादित हुआ किन्तु उनका स्वर्गवास हो चुका है और प्रतिवादीगण स. 49 ता 54 उनके वारिसान है।
22 यहकि वाद के लिये वाद कारण उपरोक्त तथ्यों से तथा अन्त में दिनांक 22. 03.2019 को प्रतिवादीगण द्वारा मौके पर आकर जबरदस्ती कब्जा कर निर्माण कर लेने की धमकी देने से वादीगण को प्रतिवादीगण के विरुद्ध न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार में हासिल व पैदा हुआ तथा श्रीमान जी को प्रस्तुत वाद सुनने व निर्णीत करने का विचाराधिकार प्राप्त है।
23 यहकि वाद का मूल्याकन वास्ते विचाराधिकार वाबतअनुतोष क व ख ● विवादित सम्पत्ति की अनुमानित बाजारू कीमत 3,00,000/- रूपये, 3,00,000/- तथा बाबत अनुतोष ग विवादित सम्पत्ति की अनुमानित बाजारू कीमत 3,00,000/- कुल 9,00,000/- किया जाता है तथा न्याय शुल्क बावत अनुतोष क एंव ख उदघोषणा के लिये निर्धारित अधिकतम न्याय शुल्क 200/- रूपये, 200/- रूपये तथा न्याय शुल्क यावत अनुतोष ग निषेधाज्ञा के लिये निर्धारित अधिकतम न्याय शुल्क 500/- कुल 900 / - का अदा किया जाता है जोकि पर्याप्त है।
24. यहकि वादीगण निम्नलिखित अनुतोष प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है-
क. यहकि उदघोषणा की आज्ञप्ति के द्वारा यह घोषित किया जाये कि वादीगण विवादित सम्पत्ति स्थित मो० कलकत्ता तहसील सदर जिला रामपुर, जिसको वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न मानचित्र में लाल रंग हरे रंग तथा पीले रंग से प्रदर्शित किया गया है, के तन्हा मालिक व काविज है तथा प्रतिवादीगण का उक्त सम्पत्ति के स्वामित्व व कब्जे से कोई सम्बन्ध नही है।
ख . यहकि उदघोषणा की आज्ञप्ति के द्वारा यह घोषित किया जाये कि वाद पत्र के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची ख में वर्णित सभी विक्रय पत्र निशून्य व निष्प्रभावी है तथा उनके आधार पर प्रतिवादीगण को 'विवादित सम्पत्ति में कोई हक व अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं होते है।
ग . यहकि स्थाई निषेधाज्ञा की आज्ञप्ति के द्वारा प्रतिवादीगण को स्वयं ,अपने रिश्तेदारान, ऐजेन्टान कारकुनान व नौकरान आदि के द्वारा वादीगण की विवादित सम्पत्ति स्थित मौ० कलकत्ता तहसील सदर जिला रामपुर, जिसको वाद पत्र के साथ सलग्न मानचित्र मे पीले रंग, हरे रंग तथा लाल रंग से प्रदर्शित किया गया है. में वादीगण के कब्जे में किसी भी प्रकार से से हस्तक्षेप करने से तथा सम्पत्ति को विक्रय द्वारा या अन्य किसी प्रकार से अन्तरित करने से सदैव के लिये निषिद्ध कर दिया जाये।
घ. यहकि वाद की वाद व्यय व हर्जा खर्चा मुकदमा भी वादीगण को प्रतिवादीगण से दिलवाया जाये।
ड. यहकि अन्य अनुतोष, जो न्यायालय वादीगण के पक्ष में उचित समझे वह भी वादीगण को प्रतिवादीगण से दिलवाया जाये।
सत्यापन:- उपरोक्त वाद पत्र के पैरा स० 1 ता 21 व 24 वादीगण हमारे निजी ज्ञान व विश्वास के आधार पर तथा प्रस्तर स० 23 के अभिकथन विधिक परामर्श के आधार पर सही व सत्य है, जिसमें ना कुछ झूठ है और नाही कुछ छिपाया गया है, जिसकी तस्दीक आज दिनांक 03.04.2019 को रामपुर में की गई।"
22. It is also not in dispute that nearly for the same dispute, the present criminal case is the fourth which has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant. Earlier opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been registered as Misc. Case No. 181/11 of 2019 (Nihaluddin Vs. Mohd. Akbar and others), which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 14th August, 2019. After dismissal of the aforesaid application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 156 (3), an FIR being Case Crime No. 39 of 2020 under Section 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant wherein after investigation, final report has been submitted against the applicant and no protest petition was filed till date. After that opposite party no.2 lodged the present FIR and thereafter he has also filed a complaint being Complaint Case No. 2537 of 2021 (Nihaluddin Vs. Nasir Khan), under Section 417, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. The proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20th October, 2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 27887 of 2022 (Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another).
Legal Issues, which emerge in both the applications
23. The veracity of the facts alleged by the applicant and the opposite party no.2 can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely of civil nature and opposite party no.2 has already instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating criminal proceedings by opposite party no.2 against the applicant is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. Scope and ambit of courts powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
24. The Apex Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
25. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though having wide scope is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
26. It is also important for this Court to notice that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.
CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT
27. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (Supra), the Apex Court for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has framed following guidelines:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
28. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 has observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.
29. The Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 has observed that the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
30. Similarly in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary reported in (992) 4 SCC 305, the Apex Court in paragraph-132 has opined as follows:
"132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles."
31. In the case of G. Sagar Suri & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636, the Apex Court has observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
32. In the case of Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 8 SCC 590 the Apex Court in paragraph-18 has observed as under:-
"18. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Where criminal proceedings are initiated based on illicit material collected on search and arrest which are per se illegal and vitiate not only a conviction and sentence based on such material but also the trial itself, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the process of the court; in such a case not quashing the proceedings would perpetuate abuse of the process of the court resulting in great hardship and injustice to the accused. In our opinion, exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a case like the one on hand, would indeed secure the ends of justice."
33. The Apex Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others VS. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another reported in (2005) 1 SCC 122 has opined that it would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
34. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Apex Court has again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The court noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The court further observed that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
35. Further in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, has observed as under:
"25. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. DPP [1964] AC 1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPP v. Humphrys [1977] AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the courts power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.
46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."
36. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Apex Court has opined that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. The Apex Court on the basis of such finding has held that as we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 I.P.C. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.
37. After the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has framed principles for deciding application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are as follows:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable;
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
38. In Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Home Department & Another reported in (2020) 12 SCC 51, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"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 2nd 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 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."
39. In Kapil Agarwal Vs. Sanjay Sharma reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed."
40. The Apex Court in the case of Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 942, referring the case of Kapil Agarwal (Supra) has observed and held as follows:
"32. In Kapil Agarwal (supra), this Court observed that Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, this Appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above.
34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. But as observed above, in this case, no criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read with the Charge-Sheet so far as this Appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died."
41. In its latest judgment the Apex Court in the case of Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 271, has opined as follows:
"9. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC have been found to exist after the investigation was complete. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet contain any reference to the essential requirements underlying Section 420. In this backdrop, the continuation of the prosecution against the appellant would amount to an abuse of the process where a civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal wrong doing."
42. The Apex Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar (Supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, has held as follows:
"Having considered the relevant arguments of the parties and decisions of this court we are of the considered view that existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention has not been made out against the Appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 has even instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasised upon by this court, by way of an observation rendered in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd & Ors.7, as under :-
"14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. The question before this Court is as to whether the case of the applicant comes under any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Parbatbahi Aahir (Supra)? Is it a case where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not make out a case against the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C.? For determination of the question it becomes relevant to note the nature of the offences alleged against the applicant, the ingredients of the offences and the averments made in the FIR/complaint.
44. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, this Court is of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though having wide scope is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases.
45. From deeper scrutiny of the FIR, charge-sheet submitted in Case No. 517 of 2022 (State Vs. Nasir Khan) including the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, the summoning order dated 16th July, 2022, complaint and statements recoded by the court below under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., plaint of the civil suit filed by opposite party no.2, this Court is of the view that in all cases the allegations made by opposite party no.2 are nearly similar and identical and in respect of the same issue in committing forgery for making power of attorney of the land in dispute. All four cases including the present cases initiated by opposite party no.2 by lodging FIR and making complaint giving rise to both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not only appears to be malicious but also civil in nature. Firstly opposite party no.2 filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 72 of 2019 (Nihal-uddin & Others Vs. Mohd. Ahmad Khan & Others) questioning the power of attorney executed in favour of the applicant and the various sale-deeds executed in respect of 14 bighas' of land in dispute for permanent injunction qua the said land as also for cancellation of power of attorney and the sale-deeds and thereafter he filed criminal cases after one by one against the applicant in order to exert pressure and to harass him.
46. This Court is of the view that the correctness or otherwise of any deed like will-deed, power of attorney, sale-deed etc., which is registered by a public/government authority can be more appropriately adjudicated by a Civil Judge on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence to be led by the parties and unless or until the same is not decided that the same is false and fabricated deed, the criminality cannot come into picture for making such deed. Such stage in the present case has yet to come.
47. In view of the deeper scrutiny of laws laid by the Apex Court referred to herein--above and its discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that none of the offences for which the applicant is summoned in both the cases, is made out from the FIR and the complaint and material on record. This Court further finds that it is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant/opposite party no.2 to implicate the applicant in such criminal cases. As already settled by the Apex Court that Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment, this Court while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows both the applications.
48. Consequently, summoning orders impugned in both the applications as well as entire proceedings of the Case No. 517 of 2022 (State Vs. Nasir Khan), arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur as also entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2537 of 2022 (Nihaluddin Vs. Nasir Khan & Others), under Sections 417, 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur are quashed.
48. There shall be no order as to costs.
