The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if a matter essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offense, and if the continuation of the criminal proceeding would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. M.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 today, is taken on record.

3. By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 199772 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Sabir Ali and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0333 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar including the charge sheet dated 17.09.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 4.11.2022.

4. Initially an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on 3.4.2022 vide Case Crime No. 0333 of 2022, alleging therein that parents of informant are said to have purchased two plots bearing 157-A & 157-B situated at Dehli Sujanpur, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar from Teachers Housing Society through sale deed dated 2/6/1979 registered in the office of sub registrar. It is further alleged that thereafter, mother of the informant is said to have died on 24/6/2010 and his father died on 03/1/1993. The informant is the eldest son of his parents amongst his four other brothers and three sisters, who after the death of their parents are the heirs of the said property. It is further alleged that after the death of the informant's parents, the applicant and his siblings became heirs, but the informant's brothers, namely, Sabir Ali, Zakir Ali and Akhtar Ali, conspired together and after preparing the forged documents sold the share of the property of the informant inherited by parents. It is alleged that informant and his other brothers are co-owners of the property and when the informant talked about his share from his brothers then he is said to have been threatened by his brothers that if he takes any legal action regarding the said land, he will have to lose his life. After investigation, charge sheet in the matter was filed whereupon cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants and informant/opposite party no. 2 are real brothers and parents of the applicants left behind them; four properties (i) Plot No. 105/591 area 750 sq. yards; (ii) Plot No. 89/271 area 268 sq. yards; (iii) Plot No. 79/23 area 254 sq. yards and (iv) Plot No. 157A/157-B area 1466 sq. yards. The only dispute is with regard to property no. (iv) i.e. 157-A/157-B area 1466 sq. yards, which is mentioned in the FIR itself.

6. It is further contended that opposite party no. 2 had filed a suit for partition bearing Case No. 433 of 2019 with regard to Plot Nos. 157A & 157-B (area 1466 Sq. yards) with regard to his share (2/13) against his other brothers and sister, which is still pending before the competent forum and the applicants are also contesting the said suit.

7. It is further submitted that just to harass the applicants, the opposite party no. 2 filed an application dated 9.9.2021 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 21.07.2022 against which opposite party no. 2 preferred criminal revision before this Court and the same has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 4335 of 2022. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 just to harass the applicants firstly moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and during the pendency of the said application, again lodged an FIR on same set of allegations on 3.4.2022, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

8. It is further contended that there is no cheating on the part of the applicants as they have executed sale deed of their own shares and only to create a pressure to settle their shares as per wishes of the opposite party no. 2, present false FIR has been lodged by him. It is further subm