The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of a prosecution in a matter essentially involving a civil dispute, without any element of criminality, would amount to an abuse of the process.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 10 August 2021 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Single Judge dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973¹ [“Cr.P.C.”] filed by the appellant for quashing the charge-sheet, which was submitted on 12 February 2021, an order taking cognizance dated 8 March 2021 and the proceedings which arise out of Case Crime No 15 of 2020 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860² [“IPC”] registered at PS Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. The facts insofar as they are material for the disposal of these proceedings may be briefly stated:

The appellant claims title to certain immovable property on the basis of a gift deed dated 2 January 2002. On 12 September 2008, a person by the name of Azim Wasif instituted a suit, OS No. 1745 of 2008 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar against the appellant seeking a declaration of title and possession of the suit property. The plaintiff in that suit has founded his claim on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by the brother of the appellant’s maternal grandfather. Initially, on 19 September 2009, the First Additional Civil Judge allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo over the disputed property. On 10 September 2010, the appellant entered into an agreement to sell the property with Mohd Naeem and Nitin Gupta, which was to take effect after the disposal of the suit in favour of the appellant. On 13 October 2014, the suit was dismissed in default. On an application for restoration filed by the plaintiff on 17 October 2014, the suit was restored to file on 21 April 2016. On 24 November 2014, the appellant is alleged to have executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property which was registered on 2 January 2015. On 5 February 2020, the FIR, noted earlier, was registered by the second respondent claiming as holder of a Special Power of Attorney executed by Wasif, who had instituted the declaratory suit. The allegation in the FIR, Crime No 15 of 2020, is that in pursuance of a Power of Attorney executed by Wasif on 29 October 2018, the second respondent visited the disputed property on 24 November 2019 and found that certain work of demolition was being carried out. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the allegation is that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Against the three other co-accused who have been named in the FIR, there are allegations in regard to offences allegedly punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. After investigation was complete, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent court on 12 February 2021.

4. On the above conspectus of facts, the appellant moved a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that disputed questions of facts arise which could not be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Khanna, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and Mr. Ankit Goel, counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

6. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellant fall within a narrow compass. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Gaurav Khanna that the entire dispute is of a civil nature. The charge-sheet which has been submitted before the competent court specifically contains a recital that a suit is pending before the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Moreover, it has been stated therein that the issue as to whether the appellant is entitled to claim under the deed of gift would be resolved in the trial, while, on the other hand, the claim of the second res