Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Jai Prakash Gupta – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 36722 of 2016
Decided On : 29-01-2021
ABUSE OF PROCESS - CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - [Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC] - [Indian Registration Act, U.P. Land Revenue Act, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)] - The court considered the abuse of process of the court in the context of civil and criminal proceedings. It held that the criminal matters should be given precedence over civil proceedings, and mere pendency of civil suits cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The court also emphasized that criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. It further highlighted that the criminal proceedings cannot be a short cut of other remedies available in law and that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredient of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to a civil dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the execution of an unregistered will and mutation proceedings related to a property. The opposite party filed a criminal case against the applicant, alleging forgery and fraud in obtaining the mutation order. The applicant sought to quash the criminal proceedings, citing the pendency of civil suits related to the will and the mutation order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed solely due to the pendency of civil suits. It emphasized that the criminal matters should be given precedence over civil proceedings and that criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending.
Issues: The main issues were whether the criminal and civil proceedings could proceed simultaneously and whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed due to the pendency of civil suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal matters should be given precedence over civil proceedings and that mere pendency of civil suits cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. It emphasized that criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending.
Final Decision: The Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits, and no orders as to costs were made.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kshitiz Shailendra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.16323 of 2016 (State Vs. Jai Prakash Gupta and others), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 743 (wrongly typed as 747) of 2015, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad. Further prayer is to quash the charge-sheet dated 15.07.2016 and cognizance order dated 01.10.2016 passed in the said case.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as per the pleadings exchanged in the case, are that one Ashwani Kumar Bansal, father of opposite party no.2 is said to have executed an unregistered will in favour of Jai Prakash Gupta, the applicant on 25.07.2007, which was later on registered on 15.10.2013, under Section 40 of the Indian Registration Act, before the Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Tanda, District Rampur. On the basis of the said will mutation proceedings were initiated by the applicant in which the Tehsildar (Judicial), Moradabad, passed order dated 30.09.2015 in his favour and the Khatauni of the concerned Khata was corrected by mutating the name of the applicant. The opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 30.09.2015, in Revision No.C-20151300001638, under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and in the said revision the order dated 30.09.2015 was set-aside by the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad by order dated 08.09.2016. The Revision No.2098 of 2016 field by the applicant, before the Board of Revenue, challenging the order dated 08.09.2016 was dismissed by order dated 10.08.2017. The applicant filed Writ B No.4068 of 2018, and it is the case of the opposite party no.2 that although he had field the caveat, but ignoring the caveat, the petition was filed, in which misleading arguments were advanced. The interim order dated 25.05.2018 was passed, but a perusal thereof shows that the applicant represented before this Court in the writ petition, that Ashwani Kumar Bansal was the father of the applicant, whereas, it is submitted that the applicant was his servant and it was so mentioned in the alleged will itself. The will deprived all the legal heirs of the property and was in favour of the servant. The opposite party no.2 is said to have filed counter affidavit in the writ petition which matter is said to be pending.
4. Ankush Bansal son of late Ashwani Kumar Bansal alongwith his mother (widow of Ashwani Kumar Bansal) filed Original Suit No.377 of 2015(Smt. Prabha Bansal and others Vs. Jai Prakash Gupta and others) against the applicant, for a decree of permanent injunction with respect to the land of Gata No.720, area 1.497 hectares, subject matter of the will, to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 therein from transferring the said land and from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs of that suit. The opposite party no.2 was also impleaded as Performa defendant no.3, since he was not available, but the suit was filed also for his interest. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad granted an ad-interim temporary injunction by order dated 14.10.2015.
5. A suit being Original Suit No.311 of 2016 has also been filed by the opposite party no.2 and others, challenging the will in question which suit has been connected with Original Suit No.377 of 2015 and is pending before the civil court concerned.
6. The opposite party no.2 lodged first information report in Case Crime No.0743 dated 02.11.2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC against the applicant and two others, inter-alia on the averments that after the death of Ashwani Kumar Bansal on 10.02.2008, the names of his legal heirs, the opposite pa
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
