Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.
Smt. Madhu Gupta and Others – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 23342 Of 2011
Decided On : 09-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : A.K. Upadhyaya, Anil Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Tripathi, Mohammad Mustafa, Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel.
For the Opposite Parties :Govt. Advocate, Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, Sanjai Kumar Pandey.

The main legal point established is that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes, and the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - IPC 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Section 415 IPC, Section 467 IPC - Section 482 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash criminal proceedings under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, arising from a property dispute. The dispute involved conflicting wills and mutation orders, and the applicants were accused of forgery and cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations lacked legal evidence and failed to establish the accused's involvement in criminal offences. It concluded that the dispute was civil in nature and that criminal proceedings were being used as a tool for harassment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and whether the allegations constituted criminal offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations lacked legal evidence and that the dispute was civil in nature. It emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment and that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings, concluding that the prosecution was an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materials available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Smt. Madhu Gupta, Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Dwarika Prasad Jaiswal, Sanjai Singh and Rajneesh with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 05.04.2010 and entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3609 of 2010, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar with the following prayers : -

“to quash the further proceeding of criminal case no. 3609 of 2010 under section- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station and District Siddharth Nagar pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar and or may pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble court may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present application, are as under :-

i. Informant moved an application, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants herein, alleging them Informant’s father Satya Narayan executed a will-deed in favour of Dwarika, Ayodhya sons of Balram, Ashish and Alok sons of Kanhiya Lal on 11.07.1996 in respect of his movable and immovable property. After the Will was made, they stopped serving and caring of Satya Narain, father of Informant, on which Informant and his wife in view of his father’s illness etc., started treating his father with care and medicine, due to which, his father Satya Narain cancelled the first Will executed in favour of Dwarika and others and executed the second Will in favour of his three sons on 25.07.1997. It is further alleged in application that Dwarika Prasad filed an application 156(3) Cr.P.C. before CJM concerned, which came to be dismissed. There against, criminal revision was also filed by him before Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed on 1.12.2005. Saying his failure Dwarika made a sale deed dated 19.5.2009 of Plot No.399 (c) in favour of Madhu Gupta on the basis of Will, to which he had no right. When Informant came to know this fact, he went Police Station to lodge the FIR but no action was taken in the matter.

ii. Upon the application 156(3) Cr.P.C. made by the Informant, an FIR was directed to be lodged, whereupon FIR in Case Crime No. 285 of 2010 was registered in Police Station concerned. Investigating Officer undertook investigation, collected the evidence and filed charge-sheet in the matter, which is under challenge in the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that property was recorded in the name of Satya Narain, who had three sons namely Balram, Kanhaiya and Sriram. Satya Narain, during his life time, had executed a registered will-deed in favour of Ayodhya, Dwarika, Ashish and Alok. As per allegations, Satya Narain himself, during his life time, got cancelled earlier will-deed.

5. Learned counsel next contended that after the death of Satya Narain, name of Dwarika Prasad and others, in whose favour Will was executed, was mutated by revenue authorities, even after the submission of objection of Informant. Thus, name of Dwarika Prasad and others got mutated in the revenue record and they have been recorded tenure holder of the property. Learned counsel further submits that applicant No.1 had purchased the land/plot No. 399 (c) after giving full consideration through registered sale deed and she is a bona fide purchaser. She got her house constructed over the land and she is living peacefully in that house. Matter is of civil nature, cancellation of will-deed is not pending in any court but Informant tried to settle his dispute of civil nature by roping the applicants in criminal case. Prosecution of applicants in criminal case is abuse of process of court, which should not be permitted to continue. Learned counsel further submits that it appears that Dwarika Prasad had moved an application under Section