# Hussain Zaidi Alias Guddu v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-12
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 9665 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hussain-zaidi-alias-guddu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-52217
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections - 420, 467, 468 & 471 -
complaint/FIR disclosing civil transaction
may also have a criminal texture but if the
dispute is predominantly civil in nature
then
merely
because
FIR/complaint
attracts
ingredients
of
any
criminal
offence will not resist the court from
quashing the criminal proceeding but in
those cases where there are specific
allegations of committing forgery and
allegations in the FIR/complaint are not
predominantly civil in nature but criminal
in nature, then there is no bar to continue
the criminal proceeding despite the fact
7 All. Hussain Zaidi Alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1203
that civil proceeding is pending between
the parties . (Para - 16)

Specific
allegation
of
commission
of
forgery on part of petitioner - forging
signatures of first informant and his
brothers and also forging photographs -
contention - dispute is essentially civil in
nature and civil dispute is already pending.
(Para - 10, 17)

HELD: - Dispute in question cannot be
said to be essentially civil in nature and
from the perusal of the impugned FIR,
cognizable offence is made out. If FIR
discloses a cognizable offence, then merely
because a civil suit is pending between the
parties will not be a ground to quash the
FIR.
Such
an
allegation
must
be
investigated. (Para - 14,17,18)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
details regarding examination of
the victim's bones, stage of their
development and opined that she
was between 18-20 years; in crossexamination she said that the age
might be 19 years. Given all these
circumstances, this court is of the
opinion that the result of the
ossification or bone test was the
most
authentic
evidence,
corroborated by the examining
doctor, PW-9."

9. In the present case, neither the
birth certificate of school nor high school
certificate nor birth certificate issued by
competent authority as required by Section94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short
'Juvenile
Justice
Act')
is
available,
therefore, only option as per Section-94 of
the Juvenile Justice Act is relying upon the
ossification test report.

10. Therefore, considering the age of
petitioner no.1 determined by the ossification
test as well as statement of petitioner no.1
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that
petitioner no.1 is of marriageable age and she
willingly got married with petitioner no.2 as
she had clearly stated in her statement that
she had left her home with petitioner no.2
willingly and both of them have been living
as husband and wife. Therefore no case u/s
363, 366 IPC is made out.

11. In view of the above, writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

12. The first information report
dated 14.05.2024 registered as case crime
no.118 of 2024, u/s 363, 366 IPC, Police
Station-Araon, District-Firozabad as well as
all consequential proceedings are hereby
quashed.
13. Photocopies of the ossification
test report as well as statement of petitioner
no.1 recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. be kept on
record. The original shall be returned in a
sealed cover, at the earliest as per
rule/procedure.

14. We, however, clarify that while
deciding the present petition, we have not
looked into the validity of marriage of the
petitioners.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1202
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 9665 of 2024

Hussain Zaidi Alias Guddu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M J Akhtar, Shahzad Alam

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Satyam Narayan, Shams Uz Zaman

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections - 420, 467, 468 & 471 -
complaint/FIR disclosing civil transaction
may also have a criminal texture but if the
dispute is predominantly civil in nature
then
merely
because
FIR/complaint
attracts
ingredients
of
any
criminal
offence will not resist the court from
quashing the criminal proceeding but in
those cases where there are specific
allegations of committing forgery and
allegations in the FIR/complaint are not
predominantly civil in nature but criminal
in nature, then there is no bar to continue
the criminal proceeding despite the fact
7 All. Hussain Zaidi Alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1203
that civil proceeding is pending between
the parties . (Para - 16)

Specific
allegation
of
commission
of
forgery on part of petitioner - forging
signatures of first informant and his
brothers and also forging photographs -
contention - dispute is essentially civil in
nature and civil dispute is already pending.
(Para - 10, 17)

HELD: - Dispute in question cannot be
said to be essentially civil in nature and
from the perusal of the impugned FIR,
cognizable offence is made out. If FIR
discloses a cognizable offence, then merely
because a civil suit is pending between the
parties will not be a ground to quash the
FIR.
Such
an
allegation
must
be
investigated. (Para - 14,17,18)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & ors., (2014)
1 SCC (Cri) 524

2. Paramjeet Batra Vs St. of Uttarakhand & ors.,
(2013) 11 SCC 673

3. Randheer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2021)
14 SCC 626

4. Usha Chakraborty Vs St. of W.B. , 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 90

5. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Karn. & ors. ,
(2022) 14 SCC 572

6. Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of Kerala
, 2015 8 SCC 293

7. Tuphail Ahmad & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
2023 (12) ADJ 209

8. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. , 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Pursuant to the order of this
Court, learned AGA has produced the copy
of the instructions which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.J.
Akhtar and Sri Shahzad Alam, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satyam
Narayan, learned counsel for the informant
and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the
State.

3. The present writ petition has
been preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned first information report dated
15.05.2024 and the investigation of Case
Crime No.152 of 2024, under Sections-420,
467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Civil
Lines, District- Meerut.

4. Contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the impugned FIR
is illegal as no preliminary investigation
was conducted by the police before lodging
the same as directed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others
reported in (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524
regarding cases being civil in nature. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the allegation in the
impugned FIR is that a forged family
settlement dated 02.11.2007 was prepared
but same was not executed by the petitioner
and one of the uncle of the petitioner,
Sayed Muste Hasan Zaidi alias Nanhey
Miyan had purchased stamp paper and
prepared the family settlement dated
02.11.2007 with the consent of all his
brother and their heirs in the year 2007
itself. After the death of the father of the
petitioner, petitioner came to know about
the settlement dated 02.11.2007 from his
uncle and when respondent no.4 and his
other family members did not agree for
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
partition of the property then the petitioner
filed a Civil Suit bearing No.769 of 2003 in
the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division)-II, Meerut for declaration and
injunction on 12.07.2023 claiming his
ownership and title in the family property
in dispute. On the basis of family
settlement dated 02.11.2007 obtained by
the petitioner from his uncle Sayed Muste
Hasan Zaidi (real brother of respondent
no.4) which is still pending and validity of
the family settlement dated 02.11.2007 is
yet to be adjudicated by the civil court. But
the respondent no.4 after the knowledge of
the aforesaid suit instead of contesting the
same before the civil court had lodged an
impugned FIR on the basis of false and
concocted story. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that
regarding the genuineness of the signature
of the respondent no.4 and his brothers,
report of hand writing expert was also filed
by the petitioner before the civil court and
family settlement dated 02.11.2007 was
also verified by the Advocate Notary and
also issued his certificate dated 25.04.2024.
It was further submitted that though in FIR
there is allegation that stamp used to
prepare forge family settlement dated
02.11.2007 was purchased on 06.12.2007
but information given to petitioner by
treasury office shows that stamp in question
was purchased on 29.10.2007 not on
06.12.2007. Therefore, this allegation is
absolutely
false.
In
support
of
this
submission learned Senior Counsel also
produced copy of R.T.I. information given
by the concerned treasury office.

5. It is lastly contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that dispute
regarding the family settlement dated
02.11.2007 has been pending before the
civil court but by the impugned FIR, the
petitioner
has
given
the
colour
of
criminality to the civil dispute between the
parties. Therefore, no offence u/s 420, 467,
468 & 471 IPC is made out and impugned
FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, Sri Satyam Narayan,
learned counsel for opposite party no.4 as
well as Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA have
vehemently opposed the present petition
and submitted that from the perusal of the
FIR, it is clear that there is specific
allegation
of
committing
forgery
by
preparing forged family settlement dated
02.11.2007 in which the signatures of the
respondent no.4 and other co-sharer of the
property have been forged.

7. The instructions were sought
from the State on the issue as to whether
before lodging the first information report,
any preliminary enquiry was conducted or
not.

8. Instructions so produced by
learned AGA reflect that a preliminary
enquiry was conducted before registration
of the first information report.

9. After hearing the submission of
learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal
of
record
on
the basis
of
instructions of learned AGA it is clear that
preliminary enquiry was conducted before
the registration of impugned FIR, therefore,
contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner
that
no
preliminary
enquiry/investigation was conducted before
registration of impugned FIR despite the
dispute
is
of
civil
in
nature,
is
misconceived.

10. So far as contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that dispute is
essentially civil in nature and civil dispute
is already pending regarding the alleged
7 All. Hussain Zaidi Alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
family settlement dated 02.11.2007 is
concerned,
the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
considered this issue in the case of
Paramjeet
Batra
Vs.
State
of
Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013)
11 SCC 673 and observed that High Court
must not hesitate in quashing the criminal
proceeding which are essentially of a civil
nature
and
further
observed
that
a
complaint disclosing civil transaction may
also have criminal texture but the High
Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of civil nature is given a cloak
of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted, the High Court should not hesitate
to quash the criminal proceeding to prevent
the abuse of process. Paragraph no.12 of
the Paramjeet Batra's (supra) case is
being quoted as under:

"12. While exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be
cautious. This power is to be used
sparingly and only for the purpose
of preventing abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure
ends
of
justice.
Whether
a
complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the
nature of facts alleged therein.
Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not
has to be judged by the High Court.
A
complaint
disclosing
civil
transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High
Court must see whether a dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature
is given a cloak of criminal offence.
In such a situation, if a civil remedy
is available and is, in fact, adopted
as has happened in this case, the
High Court should not hesitate to
quash the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of the
court."

11. Relying upon the decision of
Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Randheer Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported
in (2021) 14 SCC 626 as well as in the case
of Usha Chakraborty Vs. State of West
Bengal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
90 observed that where a dispute is
essentially of a civil nature, but is given a
cloak of criminal offence then such dispute
can be quashed.

12. Hon'ble Apex Court again
considered this issue in Mitesh Kumar J.
Sha Vs. State of Karnataka & Others
reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572, observed
that when the civil dispute is given criminal
colour then such cases is nothing but abuse
of process of law. Paragraph no.44 of the
said judgement is being quoted as under:

"44. Moreover, this Court
has
at
innumerable
instances
expressed
its
disapproval
for
imparting criminal colour to a civil
dispute, made merely to take
advantage of a relatively quick
relief granted in a criminal case in
contrast to a civil dispute. Such an
exercise is nothing but an abuse of
the process of law which must be
discouraged in its entirety."

13. However in the case of Vesa
Holdings (P) Ltd. & Another Vs. State of
Kerala reported in 2015 8 SCC 293, Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that merely because
civil remedy is also available, cannot be a
ground to quash the criminal proceeding.
Paragraph no.13 of the said judgement is
being quoted as under:
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"13. It is true that a given
set of facts may make out a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence
and only because a civil remedy
may
be
available
to
the
complainant that itself cannot be a
ground
to
quash
a
criminal
proceeding. The real test is whether
the allegations in the complaint
disclose the criminal offence of
cheating or not. In the present case
there is nothing to show that at the
very inception there was any
intention on behalf of the accused
persons to cheat which is a
condition precedent for an offence
under Section 420 IPC. In our view
the complaint does not disclose any
criminal
offence
at
all.
The
criminal proceedings should not be
encouraged when it is found to be
mala fide or otherwise an abuse of
the process of the court. The
superior courts while exercising
this power should also strive to
serve the ends of justice. In our
opinion, in view of these facts
allowing the police investigation to
continue would amount to an abuse
of the process of the court and the
High Court committed an error in
refusing to exercise the power
under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to quash the
proceedings."

14. A coordinate Bench of this
Court in Tuphail Ahmad and Others Vs.
State of U.P. And Others reported in 2023
(12) ADJ 209, also observed that if FIR
discloses cognizable offence then merely
because civil suit is pending between the
parties will not be a ground to quash the
FIR. Paragraph no.13 of Tuphail Ahmad's
(supra) case is being quoted as under:
"13. In this view of the
matter and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Trisuns Chemical Industry
(supra), Paramjeet Batra (supra),
Vesa Holdings (supra) as well as
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of
Dilip Kumar Singh @ Deepu
Singh (supra) and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case
as alleged in the first information
report and the contents of the
Original Suit No.191 of 2023
(Tuphail Ahmad vs. Rajesh Tandon)
as
already
discussed
in
the
proceeding paragraphs, we find
that the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that as a
civil dispute is pending and no
criminality is attached in the act, is
not sustainable in the eye of law
hence, stands rejected."

15. It is also relevant to mention
that Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and
others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335,
has laid down the guidelines for quashing
the FIR or complaint and observed as
under: Paragraph nos.102 and 103 of the
said judgement are being quoted as under:

"102. In the backdrop of
the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following
7 All. Hussain Zaidi Alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised
and
inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations
made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations
in the first information report and
other
materials,
if
any,
accompanying the FIR do not
disclose
a
cognizable
offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)
Where
the
uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same
do
not
disclose
the
commission of any offence and
make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations
in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations
made in the FIR or complaint are
so
absurd
and
inherently
improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a
just
conclusion
that
there
is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious
redress
for
the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)
Where
a
criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted
with
an
ulterior
motive
for
wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that
the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise
of
the
allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint
and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary
jurisdiction
on
the
court to act according to its
whim or caprice."
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. From the above analysis, it is
explicit that settled position of law is that
the
complaint/FIR
disclosing
civil
transaction may also have a criminal
texture but if the dispute is predominantly
civil in nature then merely because
FIR/complaint attracts ingredients of any
criminal offence will not resist the court
from quashing the criminal proceeding but
in those cases where there are specific
allegations of committing forgery and
allegations in the FIR/complaint are not
predominantly civil in nature but criminal
in nature, then there is no bar to continue
the criminal proceeding despite the fact that
civil proceeding is pending between the
parties.

17. In the present case there is
specific allegation of commission of
forgery on the part of the petitioner by
forging the signatures of first informant and
his
brothers
and
also
forging
the
photographs. Therefore, dispute in question
cannot be said to be essentially civil in
nature and from the perusal of the
impugned FIR, cognizable offence is made
out.

18. Therefore, this court is of the
view
that
such
allegation
must
be
investigated, therefore, petition fails and
hence dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1208
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 9930 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10379 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10852 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10916 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10968 of 2024

Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Chuabe, Sri Rafeek Ahmad
Khan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Gang chart prepared in
violation of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986- Sections 2(b),
2(b) (i) to 2(b) (xxv), 2(c) of the Act,
1986- Gangsters Act can be invoked only
when the conditions in these provisions
are fulfilled- persona who are members of
any gang and commit offences mentioned
in these provisions- Unlike other States,
even a single base case sufficient in the
St. of U.P.- Continuing activity not a
prerequisite-
Satisfaction
of
the
authorities after joint meeting is must-
Adherence to Rules, 2021 is mandatory-
Elaborate guidelines laid down in Sanni
Mishra
reiterated-
Petition
allowed.
(Paragraphs 8 to 12, 24 to 27, 30, 32, 38
and 39)

HELD:
Before proceeding on the factual aspect as well
as legal question, involved herein, it would be
appropriate to discuss the basic object of the
Gangsters Act. The Gangsters Act was enacted
to deal with those criminals who commit crime
by forming a gang or who assist or abet illegal
activities of a gang which are mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. The
Gangsters Act can be invoked only against the
persons who are termed as gangsters as per
Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act. Therefore,