caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Sardar Ali Khan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through … on 24 January, 2020Author: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3627 of 2018)
Sardar Ali Khan …Appellant
vs
The State of Uttar Pradesh
through Principal Secretary
Home Department & Anr. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
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,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2020.01.24
17:16:06 IST
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Reason:
Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5684
of 2016. By the aforesaid impugned order, application
2
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.
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
3
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
4
Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in Farrukhabad district.
The aforesaid suits were clubbed and in 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
5
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
6
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 2 nd 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 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 5 th
January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14
years. Even after filing of the suit on 24 th August,
2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay in filing
the criminal complaint against the appellant herein.
7
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 12 th 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
8
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.
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.
………………………J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
………………………J.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
NEW DELHI;
January 24,2020
Comments