IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are fundamentally civil in nature, and that the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences must be clearly demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Applicant-Kamlesh Singh (accused) and Complainant-Ishwar Singh (Opposite Party No. 4) are resident of Mumbai. The matter pertains to properties situated in District Mainpuri, details of which are mentioned in para 8 of present application.

2. The case is further arising out of a registered power of attorney purportedly executed by accused in favour of one, Shiv Ram Mishra in the year 2008. After a period of more than a decade it has now been alleged that applicant was not empowered to execute the said power of attorney and it was a piece of fraud and forgery.

3. It is not in dispute that after execution of power of attorney there were civil proceedings between applicant and Opposite Party No. 4 (Complainant) that a suit for perpetual injunction being Original Suit No. 171 of 2012 (Ishwar Singh Vs. Kamlesh Singh and others) was filed wherein on basis of a compromise, the suit was withdrawn though now it has been contended that referred compromise was entered by a person not empowered to do so. However, it is not in dispute that neither said compromise was challenged nor order to withdraw the suit was challenged. The Complainant has not taken any subsequent action, either civil or criminal, for a decade till he has lodged F.I.R. dated 14.07.2023 against applicant wherein after investigation a charge sheet was filed, which is subject matter of present case, alleging that a fraud was played by applicant with regard to properties referred above as well as power of attorney was also a result of a fraud.

4. In pursuance of above referred F.I.R. investigation was conducted and a charge sheet dated 30.08.2023 was filed in Case Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. wherein Trial Court took cognizance and applicant has been summoned vide order dated 22.09.2023, which is impugned in present application.

5. Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pranav Tiwari, learned Counsel for applicant, has vehemently urged that even considering the material available before Investigating Officer, the offences referred above are not made out. The Complainant has given a cloak of criminal offence to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature and which has already been settled by way of a compromise and on its basis an earlier suit was withdrawn. Learned Senior Advocate also added that recently Complainant has filed a fresh suit against applicant on same issue. Learned Senior Advocate further referred that an inquiry was conducted on a complaint of Complainant by a Senior Police Officer wherein it was found that allegations against applicant were of civil nature. Learned Senior Advocate referred ingredients of offences, that they are not made out.

6. Per-contra, Sri Ved Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 4, has vehemently urged that applicant has not only executed a power of attorney, though he was not entitled to do so, but under the garb of power of attorney number of transactions of property situated at District Mainpuri were executed as well. The factum of compromise and withdrawal of earlier suit was not disputed, however, learned counsel has submitted that not only power of attorney was a paper of fraud but compromise itself was a creature of fraud though admittedly compromise or order of withdrawal of civil suit have not been challenged further. Power of attorney was also not challenged before an FIR was lodged after about 15 years. Learned counsel has drawn attention of Court to the statement of Complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C during investigation, which is part of application being Annexure-9, and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:-

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraphs of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and