IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, and unexplained delays in filing complaints can lead to quashing of such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 7 of 2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that during the pendency of application, trial Court has renumbered the Complaint Case No. 171 of 2017 (Jai Kumar Harijan v. Kunal Shah and others) as Sessions Case No. 1506 of 2023 (State of U.P. v. Kunal Shah and others), therefore, he may be permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the prayer clause and further requested that same may be allowed, for which Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has no objection.

3. Amendment Application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to carry out necessary amendment during the course of day.

Order on the memo of application

Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and Sri Awadesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. Present application has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 18.5.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 171 of 2017 (Jai Kumar Harijan v. Kunal Shah and others) renumbered as Sessions Case No. 1506 of 2023 (State of U.P. v. Kunal Shah and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST, Allahabad.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 was tenant of applicant No. 1 and there was tenancy dispute between the parties. Applicant No. 1 has filed S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2014 for eviction of land on the ground of default in payment of rents and has also filed another Suit, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015 before Prescribed Authority for release of premises in dispute on account of bona-fide need. Thereafter, compromise has taken place between the parties and compromise decree dated 12.11.2016 has been passed in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2014 with the undertaking of opposite party No. 2-tenant to vacate the said premises within three months. Similarly, P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015 has also been decided vide order dated 29.11.2016 on the basis of compromise with the similar undertaking to vacate the premises in three months. Even after completion of three months, complainant-tenant has not vacated the said premise, therefore, applicants have filed execution application, which was registered as M.P.A. Case No. 1 of 2017. Similarly, opposite party No. 2 has filed application in P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 29.11.2016 on the ground of fraud and also filed another application in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2014 for setting the compromise decree dated 12.11.2016 on the similar ground. Court has dismissed the application of complainant vide order dated 3.4.2017 for setting aside the compromise deed dated 12.11.2016 passed in P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015.

4. In Execution Case i.e. M.P.A. Case No. 1 of 2017, Court has issued Parwana Bedhakli and directed the SHO, Civil Lines to get the premise vacated and ensure the possession of the said premise to applicants within 24 hours. The said order was complied with by the Police Authority on 7.4.2017 and possession was delivered to the applicant. This fact has also been recorded in the general diary of police. Thereafter, police filed compliance report on 22.4.2017 before the Execution Court about the compliance of order of the Execution Court. Opposite party No. 2 has also filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court challenging the eviction in which this Court vide order dated 20.4.2017 rejected the stay application. Another application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 12.11.2016 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2014, has also been dismissed by the Court vide order dated 30.7.2018. At this stage, opposite party No. 2 has initiated criminal proceedings by filing complaint case after inordinate delay of three months and 20 days.

5. S