Point of law : Court had considered the meaning of Section 420 of the Cr.P.C. as also Sections 417, 418, 419 and the meaning of fraud, deliberate deception, “dishonestly” and it came to the conclusion on the basis thereof, as also judgements rendered on the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into a weapon of harassment.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the opposite party no.2 as well as the order issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner dated 03.12.2021.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri transferred a commercial property/shop, which formed part of house no. 439/167/05, Khasra No. 215 at Mohalla Tahseenganj, District Lucknow, measuring area about 9.293 square meters in the name of the petitioner, it being his ancestral abadi property in his ownership and physical possession. A registered sale deed was executed on 02.03.2016 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The receipts/bills issued by the Jalkal Vibhag, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and the electricity bill in respect of the property all showed the name of Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri, the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is in physical possession of the said property now after its transfer from her husband. The opposite party no.4 is a hardened criminal and at least five FIRs have been registered against him as he was indulging in extortion of several persons. The applicant and her husband were also made victims of such extortion. The husband of the petitioner refused to pay, therefore, the opposite party no.4 filed a false complaint case before the opposite party no.2 bearing complaint no. 2283/2018, through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in which he recorded a false statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Summoning order was, thereafter, issued by the learned trial court on 23.09.2019 and the order of non-bailable warrant was also issued on 03.12.2021 against the applicant and three others. On the basis of such orders passed by the learned trial court the police are harassing the petitioner and her husband.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.4 has not filed any civil suit for cancellation of sale deed of the applicant in any competent court, but has adopted the criminal proceedings through filing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. only to overcome limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. He has referred to Article 59 of the Scheduled attached to the Limitation Act given period of limitation for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument or decree or a contract being three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or the decree cancelled or set aside or first become known to him.

4. It has been submitted that the sale deed was executed in the year 2016 and become known to the opposite party no.3 much before he filed the application before the learned trial court under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The subject matter in question is purely civil in nature. Learned trial court without application of judicial mind has entertained the application and treated it as a complaint case and issued summoning orders and also non-bailable warrant thus threatening the liberty of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, 'Randheer Singh vs. The State of U.P. & Others decided on 02.09.2021 to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of initiating criminal proceedings where the dispute was purely civil in nature.

6. This Court has perused a copy of the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 4 which is 'Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem va Jadeed, situated at Sajjadia Nagar Colony, Alam Nagar va Tahsinganj, District Lucknow, Registration No. 941-42, “arrayed through” its Daroga/Care Taker, one Mohammad Askari Ali S/o Late Mirza Mohammad Taki, resident of 439/41, Tehseenganj, P.S. Thakurganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow. In the said application the opposite party no.4 i.e. Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs. Jadeed through its Daroga/Care Taker had arrayed husband of the petitioner as respondent no.1, the petit