# 264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Sumitra & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 263
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-02
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 4182 of 2022
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/264-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-sumitra-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-51137
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482- Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 468, 471,
504, 506, 120-B & 467 -Criminal Proceedings
Quashed - The applicants sought quashing of a
charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 under Sections
420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B, 467 IPC,
summoning order dated 02.09.2021, and nonbailable warrant dated 20.06.2022 - Held, the
proceedings were quashed as the dispute was
civil in nature, and continuing the criminal
prosecution would be an abuse of process and
defeat the ends of justice. (Paras 2, 13, 14)

B.
Civil
Dispute
Misrepresented
as
Criminal Offence - The complainant alleged
that the applicants prepared fake rent receipts
and obtained government documents using his
house's address to claim ownership - Held, as
per Indian Oil Corpn. Vs NEPC India Ltd., the
dispute over tenancy and vacation of premises
was civil, and the FIR was lodged to falsely
criminalize it, warranting quashing to prevent
misuse of criminal law. (Paras 9, 10, 12)

C.
No
Evidence
of
Forgery
-
The
complainant relied on a civil court order
rejecting an injunction due to unsigned
rent receipts - Held, unsigned receipts do not
constitute forgery, and as there was no
allegation that the applicants prepared them, no
case for prosecution under Sections 467, 468, or
471 IPC was made out. (Paras 8, 12)

D. Legitimate Use of Tenanted Premises
Address - The applicants, tenants since 201011, used the complainant's house address for
Aadhaar, PAN, and other documents - Held,
tenants are entitled to use the tenanted
premises' address for government documents,
and this does not imply a claim to ownership or
constitute an offence. (Para 7)
E. Inherent Powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -
Exercise to Prevent Abuse - The court
invoked its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., as clarified in Geo Varghese Vs St. of
Rajasthan and St. of Karnataka Vs L.
Muniswamy, to quash proceedings that were
an abuse of process, emphasizing the need to
prevent harassment through unwarranted
criminal prosecutions. (Paras 11, 13)

Application Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Sumitra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
263
second prosecution in an analogous case.
That provision reads:

"20(2). No person shall be prosecuted
and punished for the same offence more
than once." As has been pointed out by this
Court in State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte(1),
both in the case of Art. 20(2) of the
Constitution as well as s. 26 of the General
Clauses Act to operate as a bar the second
prosecution
and
the
consequential
punishment thereunder, must be for "same
offence" i.e., an offence whose ingredients
are the same. It has been pointed out in the
same decision that the V Amendment of the
American Constitution which provides that
no person shall be subject, for the same
offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb, proceeds on the same principle.

9. Reliace on Apex Court judgment in
the case of Lalta and others vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 1970 (SC) 1381 has been made,
wherein case of Pritam Singh's (supra) and
Manipur Administration's case (supra) have
been accepted as binding authorities on the
issue. Reference to Municipal Corporation
of Delhi vs. Shiv Singh 1971 (1) SCC 422
has been made where Section 26 of the
general clauses Act 1897 were considered
regarding the question of double jeopardy in
relation to prosecution of an accused for
single offence under two enactments and it
was held that Section 26 of the general
clauses Act prevents accused from double
penalty. This judgment has been relied by
the counsel to advance the proposition that
the prosecution of the revisionist under the
general provisions of Indian Penal Code
and then under the provisions of Special Act
i.e., Gangster Act on the basis of implication
in the case under Section I.P.C., wherein he
has been acquitted should not be permitted.

10. Counsel for the applicant has
referred to the judgment, Bhagat Ram vs.
State of Rajasthan (1972) 2 SCC 466,
wherein the Apex Court held that even if an
order of acquittal is passed by Division
Bench of the Court, it is not open for the
third Judge of the same Court in a
subsequent stage of the same proceedings to
convict the person unless the judgment of
the Division Bench is set aside by the
Supreme Court. In view of the principle
embodied in Section 403 I.P.C.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Kolla Vira Raghav Rao vs. Gorantla
Vlalalalalal Rao, (2011) 2 SCC 703. In this
case the Apex Court disapproved the
prosecution of the accused under Section
420 I.P.C. After he was convicted under
Section 138 N.I. Act, holding that the
subsequent prosecution is barred by article
20(2) and Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. once the
facts are the same. "

10. Accordingly, the order dated
17.01.2023, passed by the Special Judge,
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
Additional
Session Judge, Court No.-08. Barabanki in
Gangster Case No. 2009/2021, State Vs
Ramesh Kumar & others, arising out case
crime no. 215/2020, under section-3(1) Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, Police Station- Satrikh,
District- Barabanki, and its consequential
criminal proceeding are hereby quashed.

11. In view of above, the petition is
allowed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 263
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 4182 of 2022
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sumitra & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajendra Pratap Singh, Surendra Singh,Vijay
Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Kaushal Kishore, Saurabh Kumar

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482- Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 468, 471,
504, 506, 120-B & 467 -Criminal Proceedings
Quashed - The applicants sought quashing of a
charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 under Sections
420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B, 467 IPC,
summoning order dated 02.09.2021, and nonbailable warrant dated 20.06.2022 - Held, the
proceedings were quashed as the dispute was
civil in nature, and continuing the criminal
prosecution would be an abuse of process and
defeat the ends of justice. (Paras 2, 13, 14)

B.
Civil
Dispute
Misrepresented
as
Criminal Offence - The complainant alleged
that the applicants prepared fake rent receipts
and obtained government documents using his
house's address to claim ownership - Held, as
per Indian Oil Corpn. Vs NEPC India Ltd., the
dispute over tenancy and vacation of premises
was civil, and the FIR was lodged to falsely
criminalize it, warranting quashing to prevent
misuse of criminal law. (Paras 9, 10, 12)

C.
No
Evidence
of
Forgery
-
The
complainant relied on a civil court order
rejecting an injunction due to unsigned
rent receipts - Held, unsigned receipts do not
constitute forgery, and as there was no
allegation that the applicants prepared them, no
case for prosecution under Sections 467, 468, or
471 IPC was made out. (Paras 8, 12)

D. Legitimate Use of Tenanted Premises
Address - The applicants, tenants since 201011, used the complainant's house address for
Aadhaar, PAN, and other documents - Held,
tenants are entitled to use the tenanted
premises' address for government documents,
and this does not imply a claim to ownership or
constitute an offence. (Para 7)
E. Inherent Powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -
Exercise to Prevent Abuse - The court
invoked its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., as clarified in Geo Varghese Vs St. of
Rajasthan and St. of Karnataka Vs L.
Muniswamy, to quash proceedings that were
an abuse of process, emphasizing the need to
prevent harassment through unwarranted
criminal prosecutions. (Paras 11, 13)

Application Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Indian Oil Corpn. Vs NEPC India Ltd.,
(2006) 6 SCC 726

2. G. Sagar Suri Vs St. of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC
636

3. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj., 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 873

4. St. of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy, (not
fully cited, referenced in Geo Varghese)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh,
the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Surya Prakash Upadhyaya, the learned
AGA and Sri Kaushal Kishore, the
learned counsel for the complainant and
perused the records.

2. By means of the instant
application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for
quashing of the charge sheet dated
12.08.2021 bearing No. 01 of 2021, under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B,
467
IPC
along
with
order
dated
02.09.2021, the summoning order dated
02.9.2021 as well as the order dated
20.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur whereby a
non-bailable warrant has been issued
against the applicant.
1 All. Sumitra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
265

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that
the complainant had let out his house to
Sabhajeet Verma-the deceased husband of
the applicant no. 1 and father of the
applicant no. 2. The accused persons
prepared fake rent receipts and got their
Aadhaar Card, PAN card, bank passbook
and handicap certificate issued with that
address and they filed a suit with intention
of taking possession of the complainant's
house and they were demanding Rs. 5 lakh
from the complainant for entering into a
settlement in the suit.

4. In the statement of the informant
recorded by the Investigating Officer, he
stated that he had let out the house to Late
Sabhajeet in the year 2010-11 at Rs. 2,200/-
per month rent. After some time he had
asked the tenant to vacate the premises but
he did not vacate the tenanted house. The
complainant had given an application in
police station for getting his house vacated
and the police had called late Sabhajeet
Verma and had made him enter into a
settlement dated 05.4.2018, that the house
will be vacated by 30.06.2018 but the
house
was
not
vacated.
Thereafter,
Sabhajeet Verma died and whenever he
asks the accused persons to vacate the
house, they demand Rs. 5 lakh from him.

5.

After
investigation,
the
investigating Officer has sumitted a charge
sheet dated 12.08.2021 for commission of
offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504,
506, 120-B, 461 IPC.

6. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a
counter affidavit opposing the application.

7. The learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the
accused persons have got Aadhaar Card,
PAN card etc. issued showing their address
as
the
house
of
the
complainant.
Undisputedly, the applicants are residing in
the house of the opposite party no. 2 as his
tenant since the year 2010-11 and while
residing in a tenanted premises, the tenant
is entitled to use the address as his/ her own
and getting government documents issued
with the address of the tenanted premises is
no offence. A mere mention of the address
of a house in any of the aforesaid
documents does not establish that the
holder of the document is claiming
ownership of the house.

8. The learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 has next alleged that
the accused persons have prepared forged
rent receipts and in support of this
contention, he has relied upon the order
dated 07.09.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.) South, Court No. 24, Sultanpur in
Suit No. 515 of 2018 filed by late Sabhajeet
Verma,
whereby
the
application
for
temporary injunction filed in that suit has
been rejected. It is mentioned in the order
that the plaintiff had filed rent receipts,
which are not on any format and which do
not bear any signature of the landlord or the
tenant. When there is no signature of any
person on the receipts, it cannot be said that
the receipts are forged.

9. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC
India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 726, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families.
There
is
also
an
impression that if a person could somehow
be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there
is
a
likelihood
of
imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil
disputes and claims, which do not involve
any criminal offence, by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed:
(SCC p. 643, para 8)

"It is to be seen if a matter, which
is essentially of a civil nature, has been
given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a
great deal of caution. For the accused it is a
serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which the High
Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under
this section has to be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

14. While no one with a
legitimate cause or grievance should be
prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who initiates
or persists with a prosecution, being fully
aware that the criminal proceedings are
unwarranted and his remedy lies only in
civil
law,
should
himself
be
made
accountable,
at
the
end
of
such
misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law. One positive step that
can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment
of innocent parties, is to exercise their
power under Section 250 CrPC more
frequently, where they discern malice or
frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part
of the complainant. Be that as it may."

10. In the present case also, the
dispute between the parties is essentially of
civil nature and it appears that the F.I.R.
has been lodged to give a false colour of
criminality to the civil dispute.

11. In 2021 SCC Online SC 873, Geo
Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"35. The scope and ambit of
inherent powers of the Court under Section
482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, now stands well defined by series of
judicial
pronouncements.
Undoubtedly,
every High Court has inherent power to act
ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and
substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court. The powers being
very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty
on the Courts, requiring great caution in its
exercise. The Court must be careful to see
that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
power vested in the Court should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
However, the inherent power or the extraordinary power conferred upon the High
Court, entitles the said Court to quash a
proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the
Court, or the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed.

36. The following observations
made by this Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy may be
relevant to note at this stage:--

"The whole some power under
Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court
1 All. Khursheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
267
to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law
though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature."

12. From the aforesaid discussion, it
appears that the opposite party no. 2 had let
out his house in the year 2010-11. He wants
to get the house vacant by the tenant.
However, instead of initiating appropriate
civil proceedings for getting the house
vacated by the tenant, he had lodged the
FIR with the aforesaid object. The receipts
in question do not bear any signature of any
person, there is no question of any
signature having been forged by any
person. Moreover, since there is no
allegation that the receipts were prepared
by
the
applicants,
they
cannot
be
prosecuted for the offence of forgery in
preparation of receipts. Therefore, no case
is made out for prosecution of the
applicant.

13. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, I am of the view that the
continuance
of
criminal
proceedings
against the applicants will defeat the ends
of justice and it would be in the interest of
justice that the proceedings be quashed.

14. Accordingly, the application is
allowed and the charge sheet dated
12.08.2021 bearing No. 01 of 2021, under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B,
467 IPC along with order dated 02.09.2021
as well as the summoning order dated
02.9.2021 as well as non bailable order
dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, are
quashed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 267
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 5525of 2023
and
Application u/s 482 Nos. 12429 of 2023 & 12443
of 2023

Khursheed & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Girish Chandra Sinha

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Avinash Singh Vishen, Avinash Singh
Vishen (Amicus Curiae), Rudra Mani Shukla

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) & 18 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, 332, 353, 342 & 364 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 -
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21 -
Appellant challenged rejection of anticipatory
bail in Case Crime No. 433 of 2022 for offences
under SC/ST Act and IPC, alleging incident
occurred at night inside an electricity office, not
in public view. Court held: (1) Section 18 of
SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail, but bar is not
absolute; it yields to constitutional protections
under Article 21 in exceptional cases (Prathvi
Raj Chauhan Vs U.O.I., (2020) 4 SCC 727). (2)
Offences under Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha),