1

                REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2020       (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3627 of 2018)  

Sardar Ali Khan                        …Appellant

vs

The State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home Department & Anr.                   ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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,

2018  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at

Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5684

of 2016. By the aforesaid impugned order, application

2

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 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.

Originally, the aforesaid plot was owned by the father

of  the  2nd 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 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

3

No.160  of  2008.   In  the  above  said  suit  the  2nd

respondent has claimed the following relief:-

“(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 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 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.

(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 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

4

Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in Farrukhabad district.

The aforesaid suits were clubbed and in interlocutory

applications filed by the parties, a common order to

maintain 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 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  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  under

5

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.  

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 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.  There is no

allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in

the suit filed by the 2nd respondent.  It is the case of

6

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 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

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 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 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.

7

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 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.

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 the proceedings in Complaint Case No.708 of

8

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.

11. It  is  made  clear  that  the  observations  and

findings  recorded  in  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.         

...........................J.                                (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

     ...........................J.                           (R. SUBHASH REDDY)

NEW DELHI;

January 24,2020