IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Mohammad Irasad - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 27620 of 2025
Decided On : 12-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acceptance of the applicant's rejoinder affidavit. (Para 1) |
| 2. background of the dispute regarding land ownership. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on the absence of deceptive practices. (Para 6) |
| 4. counterarguments highlighting the applicant's alleged criminal history. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. essentials of cheating under section 420 ipc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. classification of the dispute as civil, not criminal. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 7. quashing of the criminal proceedings. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
4. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing further proceeding of Case No. 17927 of 2024 ( State vs. Irasad and Others ), arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2022, under Sections 420 and 120 B I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut as well as order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the prosecution version, the informant, Shahid Ali, lodged an FIR against the applicant and six others at Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, on 23.02.2022 with the allegation that the disputed plot, i.e., Khasra No. 6293/1, area 1142.61 square meters @ 1366.57 square yards is situated in Village Shergadhi, Sai Colony, Tehsil and District Meerut. It is further alleged that the said plot was owned by Kanwar, Bhawar Singh, Bijendra Singh, Satendra Singh, Indraj Singh and others. Aase and others executed a sale deed for 1366.57 square yards of land from Khasra No. 6293/1 in favour of Siyaram Kasturi Devi Educational Society, Meerut, through its Secretary, Sudheer Sharma, on 30.05.2005. The sale deed further records that, after the previous transactions, 1366.57 square yards of land had remained with the vendors. Aase and others had created a society, namely, Anusuchit Jati Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. A sale deed was executed by Audesh Kumar as President of the said society, and the sale deed also bore the signatures of all the members of the Samiti. The said deed was duly registered on 30.05.2005, and possession of the sold land was handed over to the purchasers. Subsequently, the said land was purchased by the informant, applicant Mohammad Irasad, and others on 15.03.2018 from Siyaram Kasturi Devi Educational Society. At present, the said land is in the form of Abadi (residential area). On 28.03.2018, the purchasers executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the informant, which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar. The accused persons were well aware of the said Power of Attorney. The informant executed several sale deeds and power of attorney in respect of the property purchased by the executors of the power of attorney holder. However, on 14.06.2019, Bijendra (son of Aase) and Nand Kishor had executed a sale deed for 180 square yards in favour of Irshad, Amit Sharma, and Lakshya Sharma without any authority. Bijendra and Nand Kishor had no right in the said property. On the basis of the sale deed dated 14.06.2019, the applicant executed a sale deed on 23.10.2020 in favour of Kajal, transferring 90 square yards (75.24 square meters) of the said property, without any legal right or authority. Both sale deeds dated 14.06.2019 and 23.10.2020 were executed without any legal authority. On the basis of said sale deeds, the accused persons, namely Mohd. Irshad, Kajal, Bijendra and others, are threatening the informant. The applicant is a land grabber, and an FIR has been lodged against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. However, after investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant under Sectio
The court ruled that allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC require evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of transaction, which was lacking, necessitating a quash of criminal proceedings.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; allegations must establish a prima facie case for trial.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the significance of final judgments in determ....
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
The court established that allegations of cheating must demonstrate fraudulent inducement, which was not present, allowing for the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.