The pendency of a civil dispute does not bar a criminal prosecution, and a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Agnivesh holding brief of Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Virendra Kumar Pal, learned A.G.A for the State respondents and perused the records.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the first information report dated 11.07.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 249 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Bareilly.

3. The FIR impugned herein has been lodged in respect of sale deed executed on 24.02.1992. Allegation in the FIR is that one Raj Kumar Malhotra, who was having registered power of attorney dated 10.04.1991 in his favour executed by Tuphail Ahmad (petitioner no.1) for selling the plots of the property, which was being developed by the petitioner no.1-Tuphail Ahmad known as Bukhara Enclave, District Bareilly. He had executed a sale deed dated 24.02.1992 in respect of plot no.18, area 229 sq.yard, in favour of the informant-Dr. Rajesh Tandon possession whereof was also handed over. Thereafter, again by registered sale deed dated 04.02.2004 the petitioner no.1-Tuphail Ahmad alongwith others executed through Raj Kumar Malhotra, his power of attorney holder sold the said plot no.18 to the petitioner no.2-Vijay Prakash and petitioner no.3-Ritesh Agarwal, who in turn sold the said plot no.18 to the petitioner no.4-Rafikan Begam, daughter-in-law of the petitioner no.1-Tuphail Ahmad by registered sale deed dated 14.07.2011 wherein, the petitioner no.5/Accused no.6-Tasleem Ahmad (son of Tuphail Ahmad) and petitioner no.6/Accused No.7-Budhpal Singh are the witnesses. It is stated that whereas the informant throughout remained in possession of the said plot no.18. The allegation in the present first information report is that the subsequent sale deeds are nothing but a fraud played upon the informant, as all accused were aware of all the facts right since the beginning, therefore, the offences have been committed.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present criminal prosecution has been lodged after a delay of about 31 years and prior to lodging of the impugned first information report Original Suit No.191 of 2023 (Tuphail Ahmad vs. Rajesh Tandon) for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.02.1992 executed in favour of the informant-Dr.Rajesh Tandon filed by the petitioner no.1 has already been instituted on 05.07.2023. He submits that petitioner no.1 is an old man aged about 80 years; the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are bona fide purchaser and the petitioner nos.5 and 6 are only witnesses of the sale deed dated 14.07.2011. Submission, therefore, is that a civil dispute is being given colour of criminal prosecution and is liable to be quashed. It was also pointed out that Raj Kumar Malhotra had died in the year 2013.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant pointed out that the informant is a Doctor by profession and is employment in Delhi and his wife is also Professor of Radiology in University, College of Medical Science in Delhi and at present are resident of Delhi who had purchased the plot through registered sale deed dated 24.02.1992 executed by one Raj Kumar Malhotra, power of attorney holder of Tuphail Ahmad-petitioner no.1. The same person had executed the subsequent registered sale deed dated 04.02.2004 of the property in question to the accused-petitioner no.2-Vijay Prakash and accused petitioner no.3-Ritesh Agrawal, who subsequently re-sold the property to the accused-petitioner no.4-Rafikan Begam, daughter-in-law of the petitioner no.1-Tuphail Ahmad by registered sale deed dated 14.07.2011, wherein Tasleem Ahmad (petitioner no.5) son of the petitioner no.1 is one of the witness and as such a fraud has been played by Tuphail Ahmad (alongwith all the other accused persons), who had sold the property to the informant as back in the year 1992. He submits that clearly the property in question which has now been fraudulently reconveyed