Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Anukul Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4250 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2682 of 2020)
Decided On : 24-09-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Though High Court possesses wide and plenary inherent jurisdiction, such power is not unbridled or unlimited, but circumscribed by self-imposed restraints evolved through judicial pronouncements – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a “mini trial” or weigh sufficiency of evidence, which falls within domain of trial Court – Scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of FIR / complaint and accompanying material, ingredients of alleged offence are disclosed – Appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within exclusive domain of trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Nevertheless, an exception has been recognized where defence relies upon unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence of sterling quality such as documents of undisputed authenticity which ex-facie demonstrate that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and oppressive – While jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is duty of High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, or where dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it – Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, matter must ordinarily proceed to trial. (Paras 11, 11.2, 11.3,11.4 and 11.5)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467 and 468 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating and forgery – Dismissal of application seeking quashing of charge-sheet as well as consequential proceedings – Even if accepted in entirety, allegations disclose, at best, a civil dispute and do not prima facie constitute essential ingredients of criminal offences alleged – Present FIR was lodged nearly three 14 months after filing of Section 138 of N. I. Act complaint – Plea that FIR is a retaliatory counterblast to proceedings legitimately initiated by appellant, carries substantial weight – Conviction of Respondent under Section 138 of N. I. Act, lends strong support to appellant’s case that initiation of present FIR was a retaliatory measure, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to neutralise lawful action taken by him – Even if allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial / contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour – Continuation of such prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law and warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to harass accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute abuse of process – Money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution – Where dispute is essentially civil dispute concerning repayment of loan money and alleged coercion in execution of documents is purely civil in character – Essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out – Institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces inference of mala fides – Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside – FIR and consequential charge-sheet hereby quashed. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Criminal Appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.10.2019 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application No. 3856 of 2004, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings arising out of crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment dated 22.10.2019 of the High Court is set aside. FIR No. 47 of 2003 dated 05.02.2003 and consequential charge sheet dated 16.04.2003, pending before trial Court, are hereby quashed. This judgment shall not preclude parties from pursuing civil remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Application No. 3856 of 2004, whereby the High Court dismissed the appellant’s application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[For short, “Cr.P.C”] seeking quashing of the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No. 47 of 2003, registered at Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[For short, “IPC”].
3. According to the appellant, his father Shri Netrapal Singh purchased land admeasuring 8.592 hectares, situated in Khasra Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Village Sherpur Mafi, Tehsil Bilari, District Moradabad from one Akil Hussain by a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2000. After the purchase, the appellant’s father applied for mutation of the property in his favour. The vendor Akil Hussain did not raise any objection before the Tehsildar. However, the Shaher Imam of Bilari with mala fide intent to usurp the property, filed objections alleging that the land was being used for Qurbani. The Tehsildar, Bilari, by order dated 19.04.2001, rejected the objections and directed mutation in favour of the appellant’s father.
4. The appellant further averred that, since he opposed the performance of Qurbani on his land, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilari, at the behest of local politicians and the Shaher Imam, summoned the appellant and his family to Police Station Bilari on 20.01.2003. They were pressurized to sell the property to the Shaher Imam for Qurbani. Upon their refusal, the appellant and his family were threatened with dire consequences and continuously harassed by the local police. Aggrieved, the appellant and his father filed an application for surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, stating that despite no criminal cases being pending, they were being harassed by the police at the instance of the District Administration. The Station Officer, Police Station, Bilari, in his report dated 01.02.2003, confirmed that no criminal case was pending against the appellant or his family members, but admitted that their opposition to Qurbani on the land was causing problems for the District Administration.
5. It was also averred that, thereafter, the local police, acting at the behest of the District Administration and local politicians, falsely implicated the appellant in eight FIRs within a span of one week, three of which were registered on 05.02.2003. Among them, Crime No. 47 of 2003, which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings, was registered on 05.02.2003 on the basis of a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2. According to the appellant, the said FIR was a counterblast to FIR No. 120 of 2002 dated 22.06.2002 registered under Sections 406, 506 and 420 IPC on his complaint, in which, the complainant himself had been arrested. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 / complainant alleged that he had approached the appellant for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, but was advanced only Rs.1,40,000 and was compelled to execute an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1998 in respect of his plot. It was further alleged that the appellant coerced him to issue three cheques in favour of the appellant, Netrapal Singh and Lakhpat Singh, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant on 16.04.2003.
6. Apprehending bias on the part of the local Police and District Administration, the appellant made a representation to the Government of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) seeking transfer of investigation of all cases registered against him to the CBCID or another independent agency. When no action was taken, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2003, wherein,
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within exclusive domain of trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
(1) Revenue records are not documents of title – Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.(2) A civil dispute may metamorphose into a criminal dispute.
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; a prima facie case must exist to avoid abuse of legal processes.
Civil disputes should not be criminalized; lack of fraudulent intent and delay in filing complaint vitiate criminal proceedings.
Criminal proceedings initiated primarily to convert a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution constitute an abuse of process of law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
