# Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1619
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 4259 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahanth-kalyan-das-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45672
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Govt.
Advocate,
Ajai
Kumar
Verma,
Hemant
Kumar
Mishra,
Mohammad
Ehtesham Khan, Rajesh Kumar Awasthi

A. Jurisdiction - extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution or
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal
proceedings can be exercised if the
proceedings were instituted with mala
fide intention or with ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.

The revenue record remains in the custody of
the revenue officials. It cannot be believed that
some manipulation has been done without the
involvement of the revenue officials. No
revenue official has been made an accused. It
is not possible to manipulate the revenue
record without the involvement of the revenue
official. It is the duty of the Court to ensure
that the criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking private
vendetta. (Para 22)
Application U/s 482/378/407 allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,958 of 40,535. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39958 for what follows._

1620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. In doing so, the learned court is
directed not to enforce the coercive
process/orders, if any, passed by it for the
purpose of taking him into custody or to
make his arrest. The purpose, as discussed
here in above is only to decide the case
between the parties and not to harass by
physical arrest.

21. Learned A.G.A. would have no
objection in passing such direction to the
Court concerned as the interest of the State
is also in getting dispose of huge pendency
in the criminal courts.

22. It is further made clear that if the
parties are willing and consented to get
their dispute settled amicably by way of
compromise then the same may be taken
by the Court into consideration for the
purpose of disposal of the case as soon as
possible.

23. With the aforesaid observations,
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is disposed of.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1619

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 4259 of 2009

Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ravi Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt.
Advocate,
Ajai
Kumar
Verma,
Hemant
Kumar
Mishra,
Mohammad
Ehtesham Khan, Rajesh Kumar Awasthi

A. Jurisdiction - extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution or
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal
proceedings can be exercised if the
proceedings were instituted with mala
fide intention or with ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.

The revenue record remains in the custody of
the revenue officials. It cannot be believed that
some manipulation has been done without the
involvement of the revenue officials. No
revenue official has been made an accused. It
is not possible to manipulate the revenue
record without the involvement of the revenue
official. It is the duty of the Court to ensure
that the criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking private
vendetta. (Para 22)
Application U/s 482/378/407 allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

1. State of Haryana and ors Vs. Bhajan Lal and
ors 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (followed)

2. Inder Mohan Goswami and anr Vs. State of
Uttaranchal and ors (2007) 12 SCC 1

3. Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And
ors (2006) 6 SC 736

4. Anand Kumar Mohatta and anr Vs. State
(Govt. of NCT, Delhi), Department of Home
and anr Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018

5. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and
ors 1977 (2) SCC 699

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

1. The present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
1 All. Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1621
proceedings including the summoning
order dated 6.6.2009 and the order dated
30.9.2009 issuing bailable warrant against
the petitioners passed in Complaint Case
No.3482 of 2009, pending in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd,
Faizabad (Now Ayodhya).

2. The case of the petitioners is that
Gata Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015
are recorded in the name of Udasin Sangat
Datavya Evam Lok Sansthan, Ranopali,
Ayodhya of which Damodar Das, Disciple
(Chela) Mahadeo Das was the Mahanth and
Sarvrahkar. After the death of Damodar
Das, petitioner no.1, Mahant Kalyan Das,
became the Mahanth and sarvrakar as per
inheritance and succession on the basis of
registered Will duly executed by Mahanth
Damodar Das. Name of the petitioner no.1
was recorded as Mahanth and Sarvrakar
vide mutation order passed under Section
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and
name of Damodar Das was deleted. A
report dated 1.1.2004 was sent by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Faizabad to
the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Administration), Faizabad stating therein
that on the basis of the report of the
Tehsildar, Sadar, Faizabad dated 1.1.2004,
mutation of name of Mahanth Damodar
Das in khatauni as Sarvrakar was wholly
legal and correct. It was further said that in
view of the report of the Tehsildar and
perusal of the copies of the khataunis, the
order
passed
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate on 20.11.2001 was correct. It
was further said that it was not required to
initiate fresh proceedings under the Uttar
Pradesh Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded his
comments along with the report of the
Tehsildar dated 1.1.2004 to the Additional
District
Magistrate
(Administration),
Faizabad.

3. Ram Bahadur Singh, respondent
no.2/complainant filed a case under
Section 33/39 of the Uttar Pradesh Land
Revenue Act, 1901 on 27.2.2006 for
correction of the revenue records in
respect of the above gata numbers before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
Faizabad. It was alleged that in the
khatauni of fasli years 1375-1377 against
Gata Nos.278, 279 and 389 in place of his
father Rajkaran Singh, S/o Ramdhari
Singh, name of Bhartendra Vikram S/o
K.K. Nair and Smt. Shakuntala Nair, W/o
K.K. Nair had been wrongly recorded.
Similarly, in Gata No.889, in place of
applicant's father, name of Sripal S/o
Nanku, R/o Village Ranopali had been
wrongly recorded. It was also stated that
during the course of the consolidation
proceedings
when
it
came
to
the
knowledge of the father of the applicant
that name of the aforesaid two persons had
been wrongly recorded against Gata
Nos.278, 279 and 389, he filed Case
No.1035, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act. The
aforesaid case was decided by the
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
2.7.1977 against his father. Against the
order dated 2.7.1977 passed by the
Consolidation
Officer,
father
of
respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the
Settlement Officer Consolidation under
Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of
Holdings Act. The aforesaid appeal was
decided vide order dated 6.9.1977 in
favour of the father of respondent no.2.
Settlement Officer, Consolidation directed
that
names
of
Bhartendra
Vikram,
Shakuntala Nair and Sripal be expunged
and in their place name of the father of the
respondent no.2, Rajkaran Singh S/o
Rambali Singh be mutated. It was stated
that due to consolidation proceedings, the
aforesaid gata numbers got changed and
1622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for fasli years 1398-1403 the aforesaid
gata numbers were changed to 799, 1011,
1013, 1014 and 1015, which were part of
Khata No.394 in the name of father of
respondent no.2, Rajkaran Singh.

4. Father of respondent no.2 died on
27.3.1992
and,
according
to
the
succession, respondent no.2's name was
mutated
against
the
aforesaid
gata
numbers in place of his father vide order
dated 19.11.1992 for fasli years 1398 to
1403.

5. It was alleged that after fasli year
1403, new khatauni was prepared without
there being any order by any competent
authority. The area Lekhpal and Kanoongo
by mistake recorded the Gata Nos.799,
1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015 being part of
plot no.662 in favour of the petitioners. It
was further said that respondent no.2 could
come to know only in the month of
November, 2005 and after obtaining the
necessary
documents,
he
filed
the
aforesaid complaint. Thus, in sum and
substance, the allegation in the aforesaid
application was that by mistake of Lekhpal
and Kanoongo, the aforesaid land of Gata
Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015 of
plot no.662 got recorded in the name of
the petitioners.

6. Petitioner no.1 filed objection on
5.9.2006 to the said application filed by
respondent no.2. He claimed that the land
in question belonging to the Sangat
Ashram. It was specifically stated that no
case was ever contested/filed by the father
of respondent no.2 against Martand
Vikram Nair and Smt. Shakuntala Nair.
The case set up by the father of respondent
no.2 was based on forged and fabricated
documents and, the papers, which were
filed, were nothing but forged documents
and
the
same
were
prepared
by
manufacturing the revenue record. It was
further stated that the aforesaid land in
question was of the Sangat Ashram,
Ranopali and, the case set up by the father
of respondent no.2 was liable to be
rejected being based on forged and
fabricated document. It was further said
that Mahanth Damodar Das filed an
application under Section 9 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act against
Shakuntala Nair and Martand Vikram Nair
claiming that in place of Shakuntala Nair
and Martand Vikram Nair, name of
Ashram and his name as Sarvrakar should
again be recorded. The case was finally
decided in Appeal No.1860-1251 under
Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act (Udasin Sangat Ashram,
Ranopali Vs. K.K. Nair and others) on
6.9.1977.
The
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation directed that in the basic
year of the Village Ranopali against the
names of Martand Vikram Nair and Smt.
Shakuntala Nair in khatauni nos.278 and
279, name of Sangat Ashram, Ranopali
should be recorded as khatedar. It was
further said that the documents i.e.
khatauni for fasli years 1386-1391 for
khata Nos.356, 357 and 706 filed along
with the application are completely false
and fabricated. Khatauni for the fasli years
1392-1397 and 1398-1403 were also
prepared
committing
forgery
and
manipulation. Thus, the case of the
petitioner no.1 from the very beginning
had been that the application filed by the
father of respondent no.2 was based on
forged and fabricated revenue record,
which got prepared by manipulation and it
was prayed that the said application be
rejected. It was further stated in the
petition that petitioner no.3 on coming to
know
the
forgery
and
manipulation
committed in the revenue record by
1 All. Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1623
respondent no.2 and his brothers, moved
an application before the Inspector, Police
Station Kotwali City, Faizabad and the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad,
but when the FIR was not registered, he
moved an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Faizabad. In compliance of the
order passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Faizabad in the aforesaid
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
an FIR vide Case Crime No.311 of 2008,
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471
IPC against respondent no.2 and his
brothers, Virendra Bahadur Singh and
Kewal Bahadur Singh, S/o Late Rajkaran
Singh was lodged at the Police Station
Kotwali
City,
District
Faizabad
on
21.1.2008. Respondent no.2 and his
brothers preferred Writ Petition No.1144
(MB) of 2008 for quashing of the
aforesaid FIR before this Court. However,
vide order dated 7.2.2008, the aforesaid
writ petition was dismissed by this Court.
The police submitted the charge sheet in
the aforesaid case against respondent no.2
and his two brothers under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad.

7. Respondent no.2, who is working
as Peon in the Nazarat of the Civil Court,
Faizabad moved an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 15.7.2008 after
charge sheet was submitted and the
cognizance was taken in Case Crime
No.311 of 2008 for registration of the FIR
against the petitioners. It was stated that
against the order dated 2.7.1977 passed by
the
Consolidation
Officer,
Makbara,
Faizabad in Case No.1035, under Section
9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, father of respondent no.2
filed an appeal before the Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation
being
Appeal
No.1262, under Section 11(1) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was
decided on 6.9.1977 in favour of the father
of respondent no.2 and a direction was
issued that against Khata Nos.278, 279 and
389 of Village Ranopali, in place of
Bhartendra Vikram, Shakuntala Nair and
Sripal S/o Nanku, name of father of
respondent no.2 should be recorded as
sirdar. It was said that in pursuance of the
aforesaid order passed by the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, in khatauni of fasli
year 1386-1391, name of father of
respondent no.2 got recorded in Gata
Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015,
which are part of Khata No.394 from fasli
year 1386-1391, 1392-1397 and 13971403. After the death of father of
respondent no.2 on 27.3.1992, vide order
dated 19.11.1992 name of respondent no.2
and his two brothers got recorded against
those gata numbers in fasli years 13981403, which became kahata No.394.

8. In paragraph 8 of the aforesaid
complaint, it was stated that after the fasli
year 1403, without there being any order
from the competent officer, by mistake of
Area Lekhpal and Kanoongo, the aforesaid
land of Gata Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014
and 1015 got recorded in the name of
Sangat Ashram, Ranopali, Ayodhya and
was shown as part of Plot No.662. It was
also stated that when this fact came to the
knowledge of late Mahanth Damodar Das,
who was the Mahanth and Sarvrakar of the
Ashram, he accepted the aforesaid mistake
and Case No.68, under Section 33/39 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed in
the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Sadar, Faizabad for correcting the revenue
entries/record. Tehsildar in his report, had
specifically stated that the land in Gata
Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015 was
of the father of respondent no.2, Late
1624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajkaran Singh and because of mistake of
Area Lekhpal and Kanoongo, it was
wrongly recorded as part of Plot No.662
belonging to the Sangat Ashram, Ranopali.
It was alleged that unfortunately the
revenue record could not get corrected
and, therefore, respondent no.2 filed Case
No.5/22/135, under Section 33/39 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act in the court of
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Faizabad for correction of the revenue
record in respect of Gata Nos.799, 1011,
1013, 1014 and 1015 and prayed that in
place of the name of Sangat Ashram,
Ranopali, Ayodhya, his name and names
of his two brothers should be mutated. It
was also alleged that as soon as the
petitioners came to know about the case
filed by respondent no.2 under Section
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, they
got removed the revenue record of fasli
year 1387 (page no.64) where the land of
Gata Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015
was ordered to be recorded in the name of
father of respondent no.2, late Rajkaran
Singh and got inserted a forged order for
recording the name of the Sangat Ashram,
Ranopali
against
the
aforesaid
gata
numbers. When this fraudulent and forged
act came to the knowledge of respondent
no.2 during the course of inspection of
revenue record for the purposes of case
filed by him on 27.2.2006 in the court of
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Faizabad in 5/22/135, under Section 33/39
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, then
respondent no.2 gave a complaint in the
police station for registration of the FIR.
However, the FIR was not registered.
Thereafter, he moved an application on
18.6.2008
before
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police. However, no
action
was
taken
on
the
aforesaid
application. Therefore, on 15.7.2008 the
present application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was moved for a direction to
register an FIR and investigate the offence.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad
passed an order on 2.9.2008 treating the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
filed by respondent no.2 as a complaint
case.

9. From perusal of the complaint, it
is evident that respondent no.2 did not
disclose the case pending against him in
pursuance of the FIR registered at Case
Crime No.311 of 2008, Police Station
Kotwali City, District Faizabad. The
statement of the complainant/respondent
no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. reiterated
the allegation that revenue record in
respect of Gata Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014
and 1015 of fasli year 1387 (Page no.64)
was removed fraudulently and the forged
order was mentioned for recording those
gata numbers in the name of Sangat
Ashram, Ranopali. Statement of Kewal
Bahaur Singh, brother of respondent no.2
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was
also made almost the same allegation.
Manoj Kumar in his statement recorded
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. also stated that
he had been seeing the possession of
respondent no.2 and his brothers on the
land in question. The petitioners have no
concern
about
the
said
land.
The
petitioners want to grab the land by
manipulating the record. The Judicial
Magistrate-II, Faizabad vide order dated
6.6.2009 had summoned the petitioners
under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC in the
aforesaid complaint case. Thereafter, on
30.9.2009 passed an order issuing bailable
warrants against the petitioners.

10. An additional supplementary
affidavit dated 1.11.2018 has also been
filed on behalf of the petitioners. Along
with the aforesaid affidavit, a copy of the
1 All. Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1625
order dated 28.7.2011 passed by the
Additional Officer (First), Faizabad in
Case No.7/9/12/4/5/22/135, under Section
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (Now
under Section 32 of the Revenue Code,
2006) filed by respondent no.2 for
correction of the revenue entry in respect
of Gata Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and
1015 has been placed on record as
Annexure
No.SA-1.
The
Additional
Officer (First) by a detailed order dated
28.7.2011, has dismissed the aforesaid
application filed by respondent no.2.
Against the aforesaid order, revision
preferred by respondent no.2, has also
been
dismissed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad
Division, Faizabad vide order dated
25.6.2013. The said order has been placed
on record as Annexure SA-2 to the
supplementary affidavit.

11. Learned Additional Officer
(First), Faizabad in his order dated
28.7.2011 has rejected the contention of
respondent no.2 and his two brothers that
page no.64 of fasli year 1387 was removed
and by manipulation in pursuance of the
forged order dated 6.9.1977, name of
Sangat Ashram, Ranopali was recorded.
Learned Additional Officer (First) has
specifically held that respondent no.2 and
his brothers could not file any khatauni
before the fasli year 1375-1377, which
could establish that the land in question
was their ancestral property. Respondent
no.2 had also not filed any khasra in
respect of fasli year 1359 nor he has filed
any receipt depositing in the land revenue
in respect of the aforesaid land. Learned
Additional Commissioner has affirmed the
findings of the learned presiding officer.
These two orders have been challenged by
respondent no.2 and his brothers in Writ
Petition No.7360 (MS) of 2013 before this
Court. This Court on 19.11.2013 passed
the following order in the aforesaid writ
petition :-

"The main dispute is as to
whether any order in favour of petitioner
was passed by S.O.C. on 06.9.1977 or not.
Annexure 3 to the writ petition is copy of
the said order. It is mentioned in the said
order that it is in respect of three appeals,
i.e., Appeal No.1260, 1261 and 1262.
Number of the appeal alleged to have been
filed by petitioner's father Raj Karan
Singh was 1262. Learned counsel for the
contesting respondent has also shown
photostat copy of certified copy of
judgment of the same officer of the same
date but it contains only number of two
appeals, i.e. 1260 and 1261.

Learned Standing Counsel Shri
Anil
Kumar
Yadav
is
directed
to
immediately verify from the record room
of Faizabad as to whether files of appeal
no. 1260, 1261 and 1262, if filed, are
available or not. If files are available they
must be shown to the Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner is also directed
to file copy of the order dated 02.7.1977,
alleged to have been passed by the C.O.
against Raj Karan, father of the petitioner
against which Appeal no. 1262 was
allegedly filed.

Put up as fresh on 21.11.2013.

Office is directed to supply a
copy of this order free of cost to Shri Anil
Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel."

12. The petitioners/respondent no.2
and his brothers, have been seeking
adjournments in the aforesaid case, which
is evident from the order-sheet dated
31.10.2013,
6.11.2013,
8.11.2013,
11.11.2013,
14.11.2013,
21.11.2013,
22.11.2013,
25.11.2013,
2.12.2013,
9.11.2016 and 6.12.2017. No order has
1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been passed in favour of the petitioners till
date in the aforesaid writ petition.

13. Respondent no.2 has filed
counter affidavit, in which it has been
stated that the petitioners are involved in
several criminal cases of similar nature
and various proceedings are pending
against them. The contents of complaint
filed before the Magistrate have been
reiterated and, it has been stated that the
petitioners had manipulated the revenue
record
and
fraudulently
and
by
manipulation, name of the Ashram as well
as petitioners had got recorded in the
revenue record in place of respondent no.2
and his brothers.

14. The question whether the order
dated 6.9.1977 was passed in respect of
three appeals i.e. Appeal No.1260, 1261
and 1262, the last appeal being allegedly
filed by the father of respondent no.2 or it
was only in respect of Appeal Nos.1260
and 1261, has been adjudicated by the two
competent authorities and, the contention
of respondent no.2 has not been accepted.
The writ petition is pending before this
Court and, the final adjudication is still to
be done by this Court. Respondent no.2
has not got any interim order from this
Court in the pending writ petition.

15. Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned proceedings are nothing but
counter blast to the FIR lodged by
petitioner no.3, in which charge sheet has
been submitted and, respondent no.2 and
his brothers are facing prosecution. He has
further
submitted
that
their
petition
challenging the proceedings in pursuance
of the FIR registered at Case Crime
No.311 of 2008 has been dismissed by this
Court. He has also submitted that the
dispute is of civil nature and, the
impugned proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioners with mala fide
intention.
Respondent
no.2
and
his
brothers have not been successful in the
other proceedings. Filing of the complaint
before the learned Magistrate is a counter
blast measure. They have tried to give
colour to the civil dispute as a criminal
offence. He has also submitted that
respondent no.2 had filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without
disclosing the true and correct facts. He
has not disclosed the lodging of the FIR
and the proceedings against him and his
brothers in the complaint. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned proceedings are
nothing but an abuse of process of the
Court, which have been filed with ulterior
motive to falsely implicate the petitioners
and, therefore, they are liable to be set
aside.

16. On the other hand, Sri Hemant
Kumar
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.2 has submitted that the
complaint discloses the commission of the
offence by the petitioners. The complaint
is neither frivolous nor fictitious. The
allegations set out in the complaint clearly
constitute
the
offence
for
which
cognizance has been taken by the learned
Magistrate and, therefore, this Court
should not be quashed the proceedings. He
has further submitted that defence of the
petitioners should not be considered while
 adjudicating the present petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

17.

I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the parties
carefully and perused the record.

18. In sum and substance, the
allegation by respondent no.2 in the
1 All. Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1627
complaint is that the petitioners have
manipulated the revenue record in respect
of fasli year 1387. They have removed
page no.64 in which the order for
recording/mutating the name of father of
respondent no.2 was recorded and they
have manipulated that page by inserting
another page and mentioning the order for
recording the name of the Ashram and the
petitioners. Two competent officers have
not
found
any
substance
in
these
allegations
and
the
case
filed
by
respondent no.2 and his brothers under
Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act has been dismissed. Respondent no.2
has not got any relief from this Court. He
is seeking adjournment in the case, which
is evident from the order-sheet.

19. It is also important to mention
here that the first FIR was registered on
the complaint of petitioner no.3. After
investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
Trial against respondent no.2 and his two
brothers
is
in
progress
before
the
competent court. From the narration of
facts, it appears that the impugned
proceedings have been initiated as a
counter blast measure by respondent no.2.

20.

Supreme
Court
in
several
judgements including the leading judgement in
the case of State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, wherein as illustration the Supreme Court
in
paragraph
102
has
explained
the
circumstances on which the High Court should
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Paragraph 102 of the aforesaid judgement is
extracted herein-below:-

"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 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
1628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

21. In the present case, it appears that
the impugned proceedings have been
instituted with mala fide intention with
ulterior motive and the case is covered
under category (7) of paragraph 102 of the
aforesaid judgement.

22. The revenue record remains in
the custody of the revenue officials. It
cannot be believed that some manipulation
has been done without involvement of the
revenue officials. No revenue official has
been made an accused. It is not possible to
manipulate the revenue record without the
involvement of the revenue official. It is
the duty of the Court to ensure that the
criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking
private vendetta.

23. The Supreme Court in the case of
Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007)
12 SCC 1 while dealing with the power of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
in paragraph 46 of the judgement held as
under :-

"46. The court must ensure that
criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking
private vendetta or with an ulterior motive
to pressurise the accused. On analysis of
the aforementioned cases, we are of the
opinion that it is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down an inflexible rule
that would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Section 482 CrPC
though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when
it is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the statute itself and in the
aforementioned cases. In view of the
settled legal position, the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained."

24. Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd.
and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 has also
lays down the parameters for quashing of
criminal
complaint/proceedings.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the aforesaid
judgement are extracted herein below:-

"12. The principles relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash
complaints
and
criminal
proceedings
have
been
stated
and
reiterated by this Court in several
decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v.
1 All. Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1629
Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj
v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC
194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v.
Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v.
State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals
& Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
[(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615]
, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of
Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh
[(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]
and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122
: 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles,
relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed
where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the
accused.

For this purpose, the complaint
has to be examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither
a
detailed
inquiry
nor
a
meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment
of
the
reliability
or
genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall
not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.

(iv)
The
complaint
is
not
required to verbatim reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence alleged. If the
necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the ground that a few
ingredients have not been stated in detail,
the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely
a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not.

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
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
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

25. It is also well settled that the
dispute which is essentially of a civil
nature and has given a cloak of criminal
offence, the High Court should quash the
criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse
of process of the Court. In the present
case, except for a photocopy of the order
dated 9.6.1977 passed by the Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
wherein
three
appeals i.e. 1260, 1261 and 1262 have
been decided, there is no other evidence
which
would
demonstrate
that
the
petitioners had committed any offence. As
mentioned above, the contention raised by
respondent no.2 and his brothers regarding
the manipulation in the revenue record by
the petitioners has not found favour before
the two competent revenue authorities.

26. In view of the aforesaid fact, this
Court is required to consider whether in
the facts and circumstances of the case, it
would be justified to allow the impugned
proceedings
to
continue
against
the
petitioners or to quash them.

27. The Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No.1395 of 2018, Anand Kumar
Mohatta and another Vs. State ( Govt, of
NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and
another,, decided on 15.11.2018, has held
that the High Court should quash the
proceedings if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceedings to continue,
would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceedings are required to be
quashed.

28. Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka V.L. Muniswamy and
others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 in paragraph 7
of the judgement held as under under:-

"7. ........... In the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled 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 that the ends
of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The saving of the
High Court's inherent powers, both in civil
and criminal matters, is designed to
achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify
the High Court in quashing the proceeding
in the interest of justice. The ends of
1 All. Mahanth Kalyan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1631
justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice has got to be
administered according to laws made by
the legislature. The compelling necessity
for making these observations is that
without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks
to save the inherent powers of the High
Court to do justice, between the State and
its subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that
salient jurisdiction."

29. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds that the continuation of the
impugned proceedings would be an abuse
of the process of the Court. The
proceedings have been initiated with
ulterior motive to achieve for extraneous
purposes as a counter blast to the FIR
registered at Case Crime No.311 of 2008
against respondent no.2 and his brothers.

30. Thus, the petition is allowed and
the summoning order dated 6.6.2009 and
the order dated 30.9.2009 issuing bailable
warrant against the petitioners passed in
Complaint Case No.3482 of 2009, pending
in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate IInd, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya)
and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
complaint case are hereby quashed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1631

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4741 of 2015

Smt. Mahadevi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Sri K.K. Roy

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh

A. Inherent Jurisdiction - Section 482 -
Cr.P.C. - at the stage of charge sheet
factual query and assessment of defence
evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - allegation
being factual in nature can be decided
only through evidence before Trial Court.

The Court observed that whether the accused
has intention to cheat opposite party no. 2
from the very beginning or not is subject
matter of evidence because if they had taken
Rs. 1 Lac under the agreement to sell without
having any intention to fulfill
the said
agreement, both the offences of criminal
breach of trust as well as cheating would be
constituted. It would appear that the accused
never had
any intention to honor the
agreement and kept the money extended to
them which would be nothing but criminal
misappropriation of the said amount. Whether
the said amount was paid to the deceased by
opposite party no. 2 or not is again a subject
matter of evidence.