SARDAR ALI KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 145, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
SARDAR ALI KHAN
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 161 of  2020)
JANUARY 24, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 418, 419, 420, 467 & 468 and 471 –
A plot was owned by the father of the 2nd respondent and appellant
claimed purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29.12.1993 which
was registered on 05.01.1994 – Father of the 2nd respondent died in
the year 1997 – In 2008, the 2nd respondent filed a suit against the
appellant and sought cancellation of sale deed – In 2012, 2nd
respondent also filed a complaint against the appellant alleging
offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC – Applications
filed by the appellant for discharge were rejected – Subsequently,
application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the above
proceedings, however, the same was rejected by the High Court –
On appeal, held: The registered sale deed of the property in question
was of the year 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit in the year 2008
seeking cancellation of sale deed – There was no allegation of
impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd
respondent  – Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd
respondent filed criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery
and impersonation – When the matter is pending in the Civil Court
regarding the validity of the sale deed, it is for the Civil Court to
decide whether any
fraud was played or not by the appellant, on
the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed –
When the same issue was seized up before the Civil Court, the 2nd
respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the
appellant for alleged offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471
IPC – Having regard to serious factual disputes which were of civil
nature, for which civil suits were pending, allowing the 2nd
respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings would
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 145
145
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
amount to abuse of the process of law – Therefore, criminal
proceedings quashed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:  At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant
has purchased the plot in question  by sale deed dated 29th
December,1993 which was registered on 5th January, 1994. The
father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd December, 1997.  Though
the  registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit
which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in the year 2008
seeking cancellation of sale deed  alleging that the aforesaid sale
deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making
use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent
manner.  There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of
signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent.  It is the case of
the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the
sale deed as a witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008,
the 2nd respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint only
in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation.  With regard
to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before the
competent civil court and it is for the civil court to decide whether
any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on the late father of
the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed.  When the very
same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent
cannot pursue
criminal proceedings against the appellant for
alleged offence under Sections  418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471
IPC.  Although, it is contended by the 2nd respondent that
complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it
appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in the
year 2012.   The sale deed on which basis the title and possession
is claimed by the appellant was registered on 5th January, 1994,
suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years.  Even after filing of the
suit on 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay in
filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. Allowing
the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to
be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse
of the process.  It is to be noted that there is no allegation of
impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by
the 2nd respondent.  In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending consideration
before the competent court of law, the 2nd respondent cannot
pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving his
case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civil
nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd
respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is
nothing but abuse of the process of law.  For the aforesaid reasons
this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings
are fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal. [Para 9] [149-F-H;
150-A-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 161 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
5684 of 2016.
Prashant Bhushan, Omanakuttan K.K., Cheryl D’Souza, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Ankit Goel, R.K. Gupta, Sudarshan Rajan, Mahesh Kumar, Md.
Quamar Ali, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adfs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused in Complaint Case
No.708 of 2012, registered in Police Station, Kaimganj, District
Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offence under Sections 418,
419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, aggrieved by an order dated 12th March,
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016. By the aforesaid
impugned
order, application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is dismissed by the High Court.
3. We have heard Sri Prashant Bhushan learned counsel assisted
by Sri Omanakuttan K.K. and Sri Cheryl D’Souza, Advocates, for the
appellant and Sri Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/
complainant.
4. The dispute relates to plot No.102 (measuring 0.101 hectare)
which has been renumbered as plot No.102/2 situated in Yahiyapur, Post
Kaimganj, Pargana Kampil, Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, U.P.
SARDAR ALI KHAN v. THE STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL
SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Originally, the aforesaid plot was owned by the father of the 2nd
respondent late Faheem Ali Khan and the appellant claims purchase of
such plot by sale deed dated 29th December, 1993, registered on 5th
January, 1994.   Faheem Ali Khan died on 3rd December, 1997 and the
2nd respondent is one of the heirs of late Faheem Ali Khan.  For the
properties which were inherited upon 2nd respondent on the death of
Faheem Ali Khan, mutation was effected on 16th November, 1998.
5. The 2nd respondent herein has filed Original Suit No.160 of
2008 which is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in
Farrukhabad district in  case No.160 of 2008.  In the above said suit the
2nd respondent has claimed the following relief:-
“(A) That the suit of the applicant should be declare by granting
the permanent injunction against the defendant with the directions
that the defendant is restrained from illegally and forcibly
everything the applicant from the disputed property or any of its
part and should not interfere with the peaceful ownership and
possession of the applicant.
(AA) The decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 29/12/
1993, which was presented for registration on 25/01/1994 and the
photocopy of which was entered on page number 65 of the book
at people 111-252 at serial number 22 in the office of the sub
registrar Kayamganj in the letter number 1, cover number 1156 at
page number 85/93 at serial number 22 on
20/01/1994, Chile
ordered against the defendant and in favour of the applicant and
the sub registrar office should be directed to make the entries
accordingly.
(B) That the defendant should pay the suit expenses to the
applicant.
(C) That any other relief which is deemed appropriate may be
granted to the applicant.”
6. With regard to very same plot, the appellant herein also filed a
suit in Original Suit No. 474 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining
the 2nd respondent from demolishing the constructions made by the
appellant on the aforesaid plot.  The said suit is also pending in Case
No.474 of 2008 on the file of  Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in
Farrukhabad district.  The aforesaid suits were clubbed and in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
149
interlocutory applications filed by the parties, a common order to maintain
status quo in respect of land in dispute was passed.  Against the interim
order, matters were carried in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 30 and 27 of
2009 filed by the appellant whereas the respondent no.2 had filed Misc
Appeal Nos. 28 and 29 of 2009.  It is stated that all the said appeals
were decided by a common order by the Additional District Judge and
application for injunction filed by the appellant was allowed and application
filed by the 2nd respondent was dismissed, against which matters were
carried further by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions which are
stated to be pending before the High  Court and no interim order is
passed therein.
7. On 10th April, 2012, brother of the appellant, Wasim Ali Khan
filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the 2nd respondent
herein alleging  that he had stolen the original sale deed from the mutation
file.  On 20th September, 2012, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint
against the appellant and Wasim Ali Khan.  On such complaint, a case
was registered against the appellant and another for alleged offence
under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.  Initially, the appellant
filed an application for discharge which was rejected. Subsequently, he
has filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the above
said proceedings and the  summoning order issued by the Magistrate.
On  such application filed, the
impugned order is passed by High Court
rejecting the same.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused
the impugned order and other material placed on record.
9. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has purchased
the plot in question  by sale deed dated 29th December,1993 which was
registered on 5th January, 1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on
3rd December, 1997.  Though the  registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd
respondent filed suit which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in the
year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed  alleging that the aforesaid
sale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making
use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner.
There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the
suit filed by the 2nd respondent.  It is the case of the appellant that even
the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though
the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent
SARDAR ALI KHAN v. THE STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL
SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 alleging
forgery and impersonation.  With regard to the validity of the sale deed,
matter is seized up before the competent civil court and it is for the civil
court to decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on
the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed.  When
the very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent
cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged
offence under Sections  418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.  Although,
it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that complaint
filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there is
no reason for lodging private complaint in the year 2012.   The sale deed
on which basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant was
registered on 5th January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years.
Even after filing of the suit on 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4
years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein.
Allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to
be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the
process.  It is to be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation and
forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent.  In any
event, when the suit filed
by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of sale
deed, is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2nd
respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by
improving his case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are
of civil nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd respondent
to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of
the process of law.  For the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered
view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed by allowing this
appeal.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and
the impugned order dated 12th March, 2018 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of 2016 by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is set aside,  consequently, the application filed
by the appellant under Section 482, Cr.P.C. stands allowed by quashing
the proceedings in Complaint Case No.708 of 2012 for offence under
Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the file of Police Station
Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and consequential orders
passed by the Magistrate also stand quashed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
11. It is made clear that the observations and findings recorded in
this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal arising out
of application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  It is open for the civil
court to decide the various issues in the pending suits on their own merits,
uninfluenced by this order.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal disposed of.
SARDAR ALI KHAN v. THE STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL
SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]