Back
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VINOD DIWAKAR
Tuphail Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
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 Malhot
The pendency of a civil dispute does not bar a criminal prosecution, and a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture.
Criminal proceedings cannot arise from mere breach of contract; such disputes should be resolved through civil remedies, and misuse of criminal law for civil disputes is an abuse of process.
Civil disputes can involve criminal elements; thus, the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically justify quashing a criminal FIR.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, as outlined in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992).
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
Breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction.
(1) Forgery, cheating and conspiracy – Mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing FIR or to hold that dispute is merely a civil dispute – Extraordinary and inherent powers of ....
The main legal point established is the need for a fair and thorough investigation in cases involving property disputes and allegations of fraudulent activities.
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
