IMPORTANT POINT
Civil dispute cannot be disguised as criminal dispute so as to misuse process of Criminal Court.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 6543/2003 by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the application preferred by the accused-appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”).

2.1 Vide the impugned Order, the High Court refused to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 titled Balram vs. Kodai and Others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“hereinafter “IPC”) pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

3. Burdened by the fear of his estate being jeopardized and trammeled by the alcoholic obsessions of his third son-Ashish Kumar, one Shri Ram Baksh Dubey (since deceased) (hereinafter “testator”) executed an unregistered will dated 23.12.1993 bequeathing all his movable and immoveable properties in the name of his four daughters-in-law as his legatees, who, naturally, are the respective wives of testator’s four sons and are also the accused-appellants herein. The facts of the case can be crystallized as under:

3.1 The testator had four sons, namely Chandra Sekhar, Chandra Prakash, Ashish Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. In Village Dewaragangabarar, the testator had one-half share in Land Nos. 416, 639, 640, 618, 643, 656, 632, 656/9, 686, 694.

3.2 Apprehensive that his third son-Ashish Kumar will waste the estate to his intoxicating compulsions and vices, the testator bequeathed all his moveable and immoveable properties in the name of his four daughters-in-law as his legatees. The testator recorded in his will the intent to ensure that his land and property are not jeopardized, and his daughters-in-law and grandchildren are not deprived of it. To that end, the testator bequeathed his property to his daughters-in-law, who, the will notes, helped him and cared for him.

3.3 The testator passed away on 03.01.1994. Soon thereafter, his third son-Ashish Kumar executed a registered sale deed on 25.04.1994 for his share in testator’s property in favour of Complainant-Respondent No. 1.

3.4 It is the case of the accused-appellants that they, unaware of the registered sale deed dated 25.04.1994, filed for Mutation in, inter alia, Case No. 1207 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 on the basis of the will dated 23.12.1993 and a favourable Mutation Order was passed on 27.09.1994 by the Tehsildar, Harraiya.

3.5 As the complainant-respondent No. 1 continuously interfered with the peaceful possession of the accused-appellants, they preferred O.S. No. 588 of 1997 on 29.07.1997 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Basti seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the complainant-respondent no. 1 herein over the disputed land. Vide Order dated 30.07.1997, the trial court passed an ex-parte ad-interim order against the defendant therein restraining him from carrying out any type of construction on the disputed property and not to cut the crop on the disputed land.

3.6 Aggrieved by the interim order of the trial court, the respondent filed objections against the Mutation Order dated 27.09.1994 along with an application seeking the recall of the same based on the Sale Deed executed on 25.04.1994. However, vide order dated 09.01.1998, the objections raised by complainant-respondent No. 1 were rejected for non-prosecution.

3.7 Subsequently, on 12.01.2001, complainant-respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that Chandra Prakash - one of the sons of the testator - had entered into a conspiracy with accused-appellants and forged a fraudulent unregistered will after the death of the testator with the intention to circumvent the sale deed dated 25.04.1994 executed by Ashish Kumar in favour of the respondents.

3.8 On 09.09.2001, the Investigation Officer submitted his report stating that the complainant had no papers of the said land and the civil case in respect of disputed land is