# Nasir Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 336
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-27
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 727 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nasir-khan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-49922
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections - 323, 417, 420, 452, 467, 468,
471, 504, 506 & 447 - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 161,
156 (2) , 200 & 202 - ex debito justitiae
(as a debt of justice ; as a matter of right)
- Every High Court has inherent power to
act ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice, for the administration
of which alone it exists, or to prevent
abuse of the process of the court -
correctness or otherwise of any deed like
will-deed, power of attorney, sale-deed
etc.,
which
is
registered
by
a
public/government authority - can be
more appropriately adjudicated by a Civil
Judge on the basis of oral as well as
documentary evidence to be led by the
parties - unless or until the same is not
decided that the same is false and
fabricated deed - criminality cannot come
into picture for making such deed.(Para -
24,46)

Applicant summoned in two cases - Quashing of
- charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order as
well as entire proceedings - Civil suit filed by
opposite party no.2 - questioning - power of
attorney executed in favour of applicant -
various sale-deeds executed in respect of 14
bighas' of land in dispute for permanent
injunction qua the said land - cancellation of
power of attorney and sale-deeds - filed criminal
cases after one by one against applicant - to
exert pressure and to harass him.(Para -2,45)

HELD:-None of the offences for which the
applicant is summoned in both the cases, is
made out from the FIR and the complaint and
material on record. Complainant/opposite party
no.2 abuses process of law to implicate the
applicant in criminal cases. Section 482 is
designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring
that criminal proceedings are not permitted to
generate
into
weapons
of
harassment.
Summoning orders impugned in both the
applications as well as entire proceedings
quashed. (Para - 45,47)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,907 of 63,182. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39907 for what follows._

336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 4 ILRA 336
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 727 of 2023
with
Application u/s 482 No. 27887 of 2022

Nasir Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri Saurabh Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections - 323, 417, 420, 452, 467, 468,
471, 504, 506 & 447 - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 161,
156 (2) , 200 & 202 - ex debito justitiae
(as a debt of justice ; as a matter of right)
- Every High Court has inherent power to
act ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice, for the administration
of which alone it exists, or to prevent
abuse of the process of the court -
correctness or otherwise of any deed like
will-deed, power of attorney, sale-deed
etc.,
which
is
registered
by
a
public/government authority - can be
more appropriately adjudicated by a Civil
Judge on the basis of oral as well as
documentary evidence to be led by the
parties - unless or until the same is not
decided that the same is false and
fabricated deed - criminality cannot come
into picture for making such deed.(Para -
24,46)

Applicant summoned in two cases - Quashing of
- charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order as
well as entire proceedings - Civil suit filed by
opposite party no.2 - questioning - power of
attorney executed in favour of applicant -
various sale-deeds executed in respect of 14
bighas' of land in dispute for permanent
injunction qua the said land - cancellation of
power of attorney and sale-deeds - filed criminal
cases after one by one against applicant - to
exert pressure and to harass him.(Para -2,45)

HELD:-None of the offences for which the
applicant is summoned in both the cases, is
made out from the FIR and the complaint and
material on record. Complainant/opposite party
no.2 abuses process of law to implicate the
applicant in criminal cases. Section 482 is
designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring
that criminal proceedings are not permitted to
generate
into
weapons
of
harassment.
Summoning orders impugned in both the
applications as well as entire proceedings
quashed. (Para - 45,47)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mitesh Kumar Vs St. of Karn. & ors. , 2021
AIR (S.C.) 5298

2. St. of Karn. Vs L. Muniswamy & ors., (1977) 2
SCC 699

3. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & ors. Vs
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & ors. (1988) 1
SCC 692

4. Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary , (992) 4 SCC
305

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

6. Roy V.D. Vs St. of Kerala , (2000) 8 SCC 590

7. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & ors. Vs
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & anr. , (2005) 1 SCC
122

8. I.O.C. Vs NEPC India Ltd. & ors. , (2006) 6
SCC 736

9. Inder Mohan Goswami Vs St. of Uttaranchal ,
(2007) 12 SCC 1
4 All. Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
337
10. Paramjeet Batra Vs St. Uttarakhand , (2013)
11 SCC 673

11. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. , (2017) 9
SCC 641

12. Sardar Ali Khan Vs St. of U.P. Through
Principal Secretary, Home Department & anr.,
(2020) 12 SCC 51

13. Kapil Agarwal Vs Sanjay Sharma , (2021) 5
SCC 524

14. Randheer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , 2021
SCC OnLine SC 942

15. Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs St. of U. P. & anr. ,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 271

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker
Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Satendra Narayan Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 727 of 2023 has been filed on
behalf of the applicant to quash the chargesheet No. 58 of 2022 dated 10.04.2022,
cognizance/
summoning
order
dated
14.04.2022 as well as entire proceedings of
Case No. 517 of 2022 (State Vs. Nasir
Khan), arising out of Case Crime No. 130
of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506, 447 I.P.C., Police Station
Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the
court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur.

AND

The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 27887 of 2022 has been filed
for quashing the summoning order dated
16th July, 2022 as well as the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2537
of 2022 (Nihaluddin Vs. Nasir Khan &
Others), under Sections 417, 452, 323 and
504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District
Rampur, pending in the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,
Rampur.

3. Since the issue and laws on the subject
are
similar
and
identical,
both
the
applications have been clubbed together
and are finally decided by means of this
common judgment. The application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 727 of 2023 is
being treated to be the leading case in
which affidavits have been exchanged
between the parties.

Version as unfolded in the FIR

4. The present criminal case borne out
from a first information report lodged by
Nihal-uddin Khan i.e. opposite party no.2
on 4th July, 2021 at 2357 hours against as
many as 23 accused persons including the
applicants. In the said FIR, it has been
alleged that mother of the informant
namely Raees Jahan Begum was having 14
Bigha land situated at Mohalla Culcutta,
Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur,
which was obtained by her through
registered sale deed dated 25.06.1966. She
died on 01.11.2015 and after her death her
sons namely Alauddin, Haseemuddin and
Nihaluddin (informant) have become the
owners of the said land. It is alleged that
taking advantage of the helplessness of the
informant, the applicant after committing
criminal conspiracy with the help of others
obtained forged and fabricated power of
attorney by one Sabir Khan but the
applicants and their mother had not sold the
said land. Sabir Khan died on 17.09.2004
and after his death the Power of Attorney
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
became invalid. But the applicant has
executed
sale
deeds
on
25.07.2018,
28.02.2011,
13.05.2013,
26.07.2016,
17.01.2017, 28.03.2013, 17.02.2016 and
the same are illegal and the persons
concerned are trying to get possessions for
which an application was given to the
District Magistrate and an F.I.R. as Case
Crime No. 39 of 2020, under Sections 323,
504, 506, 307 I.P.C. was lodged against the
applicant. The applicant has threatened the
informant hence the present F.I.R. has been
lodged.

Case of the Applicant

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the alleged incident was
occurred on 18.05.2021, whereas the first
information report has been lodged after
two months of the incident i.e. 04.07.2021
and there is no plausible explanation about
the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

6. After lodging of the aforesaid FIR,
the
investigation
proceeded
and
the
Investigating Officer has recorded the
statement of the informant under Section
161 Cr.P.C. in which he has reiterated same
version as unfolded in the F.I.R. The
Investigating Officer also recorded the
statements of formal witnesses, namely,
Constable
Sushil
Kumar,
S.I.
Raees
Ahmad,
S.I.
Vishwabandhu,
S.I.
Dharmendra
Singh,
Dr.
Vivekanand
(Executive
Officer),
Premendra
Singh
(Lekhpal)
and
Kaushal
Dixit
(Sub
Registrar) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
they have not supported the allegations
made in the F.I.R. After conclusion of the
statutory investigation under Chapter XII
Cr.P.C.,
the
Investigating
Officer
on
10.04.2022 submitted the charge-sheet No.
58 of 2022 against the applicant under
Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447
I.P.C. and upon submission of the same, on
14.04.2022 learned A.C.J.M.-I has taken
cognizance. upon the same.

7. Earlier with regard to the same
allegation, opposite party no.2 has moved
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and the same has been registered as Misc.
Case No. 181/11 of 2019 (Nihaluddin Vs.
Mohd. Akbar and others), which was
rejected by the court below vide order
dated 14th August, 2019 on the ground that
since opposite party no.2 has not produced
any
document
from
which
can
be
ascertained as to whose name has been
recorded in the records of Nagar Palika
over the land in dispute. It has also been
recorded by the court below that in the
police record it has been mentioned that a
civil suit is pending between the parties and
such fact has also been accepted by
opposite party no.2 during the course of
argument. On the basis of the aforesaid
finding, the court below has opined that the
application under Section 156 (3) has only
been made to exert pressure upon the
applicant. The court below has not found
any merit in the said application filed by
opposite party no.2 and ultimately rejected
the same.

8. After dismissal of the aforesaid
application filed by opposite party no.2 under
Section 156 (3), an FIR being Case Crime
No. 39 of 2020 under Section 323, 504, 506,
307 I.P.C. was lodged by opposite party no.2
against the applicant wherein nearly same
allegations have been made against him due
to land in question. In the said case, after
investigation, final report has been submitted
against the applicant and no protest petition
was filed till date.

9. After failing twice in initiating false
and frivolous criminal cases against the
4 All. Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
339
applicant, opposite party no.2 lodged the
present FIR and thereafter he has also filed
a complaint being Complaint Case No.
2537 of 2021 (Nihaluddin Vs. Nasir Khan),
under Section 417, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. on
false
and
frivolous
allegations.
The
proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case
were challenged by the applicant before
this
Court
by
means
of
connected
application being Application U/s 482 No.
27887 of 2022 (Nasir Khan Vs. State of
U.P. and another), wherein this Court vide
order dated 20.10.2022 has stayed the
further proceeding against the applicant.

10. For ready reference, order of this
Court dated 20th October, 2022 is being
quoted herein-below:

"Sri Satendra Narayan Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant submits that
opposite party no.2 is successful to initiate
the criminal proceedings against the
applicant despite earlier two attempts were
rejected that is an application under
Section 156 Cr.P.C. submitted by the
opposite party no.2 was rejected by an
order dated 14.8.2019 where allegations
were
made
of
committing
forgery.
Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the
opposite party no.2 for offence under
Section 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC in
regard to an alleged incident occurred on
25.9.2019 and after investigation final
report
was
submitted
and
as
per
instruction, till date no protest petition has
been
filed.
Thereafter
the
present
proceedings were initiated by way of filing
a criminal complaint on 19.3.2020 making
an allegation in the incident occurred on
13.9.2021 wherein after recording the
statements under Section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. applicants are summoned.

Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the facts of the present
case squarely fall under paragraph no.102
Sub Paragraph No.7 of State of Haryana
and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others
reported in 1992 AIR 604 SC.

Issue notice to opposite party no.2
returnable at an early date. Steps of service
be taken within ten days.

Put up this case as fresh on the date
fixed in the notice.

Further
proceedings
pursuant
to
Complaint
Case
No.2537
of
2021
(Nihaluddin vs. Nasir Khan and others)
under Section 417, 452, 323, 504 IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur,
pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,
Rampur shall remain stayed for a period of
four weeks only."

11. It is submitted that under the
Right to Information Act, an information
was sought by the applicant from the Nagar
Palika Parishad, Rampur whether the name
of mother of opposite party no.2, namely,
Raees Jahan or opposite party no.2 Nihaluddin has ever been recorded over the land
in question in the relevant records or not,
he has been informed by the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Rampur that no such name has
been recorded over the land in question.

12. The land in question was
belonging to one Hakeem Nabi Ahmad,
who has given the said land to Sabir Khan
in the year 1957, therefore, he became the
owner of the said land. Sabir Khan has
executed Power of Attorney in favour of
the applicant on 12.03.1997 authorizing
him to deliver all rights, a copy of the
Hindi translation from Urdu deed executed
by Hakeem Nabi Ahmad in favour of Sabir
Ali has been enclosed as Annexure-11 to
the affidavit accompanying the present
application whereas the copy of the
registration of the said power of attorney
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been enclosed as Annexure No.9 to the
affidavit
accompanying
the
present
application.

13. On 3rd February, 2019 for the
same land dispute, opposite party no.2 and
his brothers, namely, Allah-uddin, Haseenuddin have a civil suit against as many as
185 persons including the applicant in the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Rampur bearing Original Suit No. 72 of
2019 (Nihal-uddin & Others Vs. Mohd.
Ahmad Khan & Others), for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants to the
said suit from interfering in peaceful
possession of the plaintiffs of the said suit
over the land in question, a copy of the
plaint of the said suit has been enclosed as
Annexure
No.10
to
the
affidavit
accompanying the present application. The
said suit is still pending.

The case of opposite party no.2 as
per the counter affidavit filed on his
behalf:

14. Mrs. Sarvari Begum wife of
Mohd. Ali Khan, who was the maternal
grand-mother (Nani) of opposite party no.2
executed a registered sale-deed in favour of
mother of opposite party no.2, namely Mrs.
Raees Jahan Begum on 27th June, 1966, a
copy of which has been enclosed as
Annexure-C.A.-3 to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. After
the death of his mother, names of opposite
party no.2 and his two brothers were
entered into the records of Nagar Palika
Parishad, Rampur.

15. Submission of the learned
counsel for the Applicant

(i) There is delay of nearly two months
in lodging of FIR for the alleged incident
but no plausible explanation has been
given.

(ii) This is case of no injury nor any
medical examination report qua any injured
or the part of the case diary has been
bought on record.

(iii) On being unsuccessful twice in
initiating criminal proceedings against the
applicant, Opposite party no.2 has lodged
the present FIR only in order to exert
pressure upon him on false and frivolous
allegations, when as a matter of fact for the
dispute of same land, he has already filed a
civil suit in the year 2019 against the
applicants and others.

(iv) The alleged incident dated 18th
May, 2021 as has been mentioned in the
FIR has never occurred and all the
allegations mentioned therein are wholly
false and concocted.

(v) The present criminal case initiated
by opposite party no.2 against the applicant
is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same
has been lodged only for exploiting the
applicant by indulging his name in a fake,
false and frivolous case. The entire
prosecution story as unfolded in the first
information report is absolutely a self-made
story projected by opposite party no.2.

(vi) The case in hand is purely civil
nature and by the present F.I.R. an attempt
has been made to enforce the memorandum
of understanding by giving criminal colour.
In support of his submission he has drawn
the attention of the Court to paragraph-47
of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in
2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 5298.

(vii) The applicant has not committed
any forgery nor he has cheated anyone nor
he
has
manufactured
any
forged
documents.

(viii) The Investigating Officer has not
recorded statement of any family member
4 All. Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
341
of opposite party no.2 and only recording
the statement of opposite party no.2 he has
submitted
the
impugned
charge-sheet
against the applicant without collecting any
material evidence against the applicant.

(ix) The judgment of the Hon'ble
Surpeme Court in the case of State of
Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal &
Others reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC
335 has been referred for drawing the
attention of the Court to the issue that in
several categories of cases, power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by
this Court for quashing the malicious
proceedings. The case of the applicant is
covered
with
the
seventh
category
mentioned in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal
(Supra).

(x) The averments made in paragraph6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
opposite party no.2 that the applicant has
four criminal antecedents to his credit
except the present one is absolutely
incorrect. Only three cases are against the
applicant, which have been initiated by
opposite party no.2 in order to exert
pressure upon him for resolving the dispute
giving rise to the civil proceedings initiated
by him. In case crime no. 39 of 2020
lodged by opposite party no.2 against the
applicant, final report has been submitted
by the police before the court concerned
and opposite party no.2 has not filed any
protest petition against the same, the further
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2537
of 2022 initiated by opposite party no.2
have already been stayed by this Court vide
order
dated
20th
October,
2022
in
connected application being Application
No. 27887 of 2022, whereas case crime no.
130 of 2021 is present one, proceedings of
which are under challenge in the leading
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

16.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, therefore, submitted that the
present
criminal
proceedings
initiated
against
the
applicants
are
not
only
malicious but also amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by
learned counsel for the applicants that the
proceedings of the above mentioned
complaint case are liable to be quashed by
this Court.

17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and the
learned counsel for opposite party no.2
have submitted that from the perusal of the
material on record and looking into the
facts of the case at this stage it cannot be
said that no offence is made out against the
applicants. All the submissions made relate
to the disputed questions of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He also submits
that it is settled law that the evidence
produced by the accused in his defence
cannot be looked into by the Court, except
in very exceptional circumstances, at the
initial stage of the criminal proceedings.

18. Learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 further submits that the applicant
has four criminal antecedents to his credit
except the present one and he is habitual
offender in grabbing various properties.

19. He also submits that the alleged
power of attorney dated 12th March, 1997
executed in favour of applicant, namely,
Nasir Khan by Sabir Khan is a forged and
fabricated document. In order to grab the
property the applicant has got prepared the
same. Neither the name of Sabir Khan nor
the name of the applicant has ever recorded
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the records of the Nagar Palika Parishad,
Rampur over the land in dispute.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned A.G.A. and the learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 urge that
offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506, 447 I.P.C. is made out against the
applicant. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and
the same is liable to be dismissed by this
Court.

20. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of both
the applications.

21. It is not in dispute that the dispute
arose between the parties is for 14 bighas
land situated at Mohalla-Culcutta, Police
Station-Kotwali, District-Rampur. It is also
an admitted position that for permanent
injunction and proclamation over the said
land, opposite party no.2 and his two
brothers have filed civil suit on 3rd
February, 2019 before the court being
Original Suit No. 72 of 2019 (Nihal-uddin
& Others Vs. Mohd. Ahmad Khan &
Others), which is pending consideration. It
is therefore, necessary for this Court to
refer the averments and the prayer made by
opposite party no.2 along with his two
brothers in the plaint, which are being
quoted herein-below:

उपरोक्त वाद में वादीगण निम्िनिनित निवेदि करते हैं-

"1. यहनक वादीगण आपस में सगे भाई है तथा वादपत्र के
अन्त में वनणित भूनम नथथत मौ० किकत्ता तहसीि सदर नििा
रामपुर, निसे वादपत्र के साथ संिग्ि िक्शे में िाि रंग, हरे रंग तथा
पीिे रंग से प्रदनशित नकया गया है, के मानिक व कानिि है।
2. यहनक वादीगण की माता श्रीमनत रईस िहॉ िेगम पत्िी श्री
िमािुद्दीि निवासिी मौ० किकत्ता तहसीि सदर नििा रामपुर में
नथथत भूनम निसे वाद पत्र के साथ संिग्ि मािानित्र में प्रदनशित नकया
गया है, की मानिक व कानिि थी। उक्त सम्पनत्त में से 14 िीघा
पुख्ता भूनम श्रीमनत रईस िहॉ िेगम िे श्रीमनत सरवरी िेगम से नवक्रय
पत्र नदिॉकी 25.0.1966के द्वारा िरीदी थी। श्रीमनत सरवरी िेगम
श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िेगम की माता थी। श्रीमनत सरवरी िेगम िे अपिी
िेटी के हक में निस 14 पुख्ता भूनम का वयिामा नदिॉक
25.06.1966 को निष्पानदत नकया था वह भूनम श्रीमनत सरवरी
िेगम िे नवक्रय पत्र नदिॉक 6.11.1931 के द्वारा मकिूि हुसैि
िा आनद से िरीदी थी। इस 1931 के नवक्रय पत्र का उपनििंधक
कायािय में आग िगिे के िाद पुिः इन्राि भी हुआ है। इस नवक्रय
पत्र द्वारा क्रय की गयी भूनम से उत्तर में भी श्रीमनत सरवरी िेगम की
अन्य भूनम िगभग 50 िीघा िाम थी। यह भूनम भी सरवरी िेगम
की मृत्यु के उपरान्त श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िेगम को नवरासत में नमिी।
सरवरी िेगम को उक्त 50 िीघा िाम भूनम उिके पनत श्री दूल्हा िााँ
से नवरासत में नमिी थी, िोनक दूल्हा िां की दादािाही भूनम थी।
3. यहनक उपरोक्त वनणित प्रकार से श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िेगम को 14
िीघा पुख्ता अथाित 70 िीघा िाम नवक्रय पत्र नदिॉक
27.06.1966 के आधार पर तथा 50 िीघा िाम नवरासत में
प्राप्त हुयी। इस प्रकार श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िेगम की मो० किकत्ता में
कुि 120 िीघा िाम भूनम थी। मो० किकत्ता में अनधकतर भूनम
श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ की ही थी। यह भूनम श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ के
थवगिवास पर उिके पुत्रों वादीगण को नवरासति प्राप्त हुयी ।
4. यहनक वर्ि 1931 के नवक्रय पत्र के द्वारा सरवरी िेगम द्वारा
िरीदी गयी सम्पनत्त की सीमायें उक्त नवक्रयपत्र में निम्िप्रकार नििी
है-

1. पूवि - राथता व आरािी अिुि नमल्कीयत िोिा हकीम

फिरूददीि व िेत अिी िााँ

पनिम - तािाि व िेत सरवरी फिरूद्दीि

अिी िाि

उत्तर - आरािी व कब्िा फिरुद्दीि

दनिण - कब्रथताि व िेत िुद्धि िा

2. पूवि - िेत अम्मि िााँ

पनिम - राथता व िेत सरवरी

उत्तर - कब्रथताि

दनिण - िािा सरकारी

5. यहनक वर्ि 1966 के निस नवक्रय पत्र से श्रीमनत रईस
िहााँ ि सम्पनत्तःिरीदी उस ियिामें के समय मौके पर हुये पररवतिों
के कारण नवक्रय पत्र में निम्िनिनित सीमाओं का उल्िेि है-

क. पूवि - राथता व आरािी िेत अिुि।

पनिम - िािा संरकारी

उत्तर - आरािी अिुि मकािात िागवाि
4 All. Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
343

दनिण - कब्रथताि

ि. पूवि - आरािी िेत अिुि

पनिम - िािा

उत्तर - आरािी िेत

दनिण - आरािी सरवरी

6. यहनक िम्िी अवनध में पररवति होता रहा कुि नववानदत
भूनम की वतिमाि नथथनत वाद पत्र के साथ संिग्ि िक्शे में प्रदनशित है।
नववानदत भूनम का रोमपुर िगर पानिका पररर्द रामपुर के अनभिेिों
में प्िॉट स० 1808, 1809, 1010, 1811 1812,
1813, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292,
293 294 295, 296, 297, 298, 326, 1687,
1688, 1651,1653,1654अंनकत है।

7. यहनक वर्ि 1931 के नवक्रय पत्र व 1966 के नवक्रय
पत्र में सम्पनत्त की दो सीमाये दी गयी है। एक सीमा की सम्पनत्त को
मािनित्र में हरे रंग तथा दूसरी सीमा की सम्पनत्त को पीिे रंग से तथा
सरवरी िेगम से राईस िहााँ को नवरासत में नमिी सम्पनत को िाि
रंग से प्रदनशित नकया गया है।

8. यहनक रईस िहााँ िेगम को ही कुछ भूनम को सनम्मनित
करते हुये सरकार द्वारा आसरा कॉिोिी, पािी की टंकी का निमािण
कर निया गया तथा कुछ भाग पर मनन्दर व थकूि िि गया। उक्त
सम्पनत्त के सम्िन्ध मैं प्रथतुत िाद में वादीगण कोई नववाद िही कर
रहे है तथा उसे सिग्ि मािनित्र में प्रदनशित नकया गया है। यह सम्पनत्त
प्रथतुत िाद में नववानदत िहीं है। इस सम्पनत्त के सम्िन्ध मे वादीगण
सम्िनन्धत व्यनक्तयों / सरकार के नवरूद्ध अिग से कायिवाही करेंगे।
9. यह नक श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िे अपिे िीविकाि में अपिी सम्मनत
में से कुछ सम्पनत्त नवक्रय पत्रों के द्वारा िेि दी। उिकी मृत्यु पर
नवरासति प्राप्त हुयी सम्पनत्त में से एक भूिण्ड वादी स० 1 व 2
द्वारा नवक्रय नकया गया िेिी गयी सम्पनत्त का नववरण वाद पत्र के
साथ संिग्ि अिुसूिी क 'ट' मे वनणित है तथा िेिी गयी सम्पनत्त को
वाद पत्र के साथ सिग्ि िक्शे में िीिे रंग से प्रदनशित नकया गया है-
-
10. यहनक श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ की उक्त सम्पनत्त के सम्िन्ध में उिके
िीविकाि में काफी नववाद भी ििा। तुिाराम, रोशििाि व
छोिीराम िे श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िेगम से 919 वगि मीटर आरािी
िरीदिे का इकरारिामा मुआयदावय प्रदनशित करते हुये एक वाद
मूिवाद स० 26/198 तुिाराम आनद प्रनत श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ
योनित नकया, निसमें श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ द्वारा उक्त इकरारिामें को
घोिाधडी के आधार पर निष्पानदत होिा कहा गया तथा यह भी
उल्िेि नकया नक श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िे तीि नवक्रय पत्रों नदिॉकी
13.11.1986 के द्वारा मसरूर फाल्िा िेगम को 100 गि
आरािी ,िन्ही िेगम को 100 वगिगि आरािी तथा नवक्रय पत्र
नदिॉकी: 23.11.1986 के द्वारा श्रीमनत रहमत िहााँ िेगम को
100 वगिगि भूनम िेि दी है अन्त में उक्त दावा िाररि हो गया।

11. यहनक श्रीमनत रईस िहॉ िहुत सम्पन्ि मनहिा थी। इस
कारण नवनभन्ि व्यनक्त समय-समय पर उिकी सम्पनत्त हडपिे का
प्रयास करते रहते थे। श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िे नववानदत सम्पनत्त पर
समय-समय पर मकािात आनद का निमािण भी नकया था।
12. यहनक श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ का नदिांक 1.11.2015 को
थवगिवास हो गया। वादी स० 1 निहािुद्दीि श्रीिगर में कारोिार करते
है ििनक वादी स० 2 व 3 नदल्िी में कारोिार करते हैं तथा
वादीगण की माता अनधकतर अपिे पुत्रों के साथ नदल्िी में रहती थी
इसी िात का अिैध िाभ उठाते हुये प्रनतवादीगण स० 1 ता 4 व
10 िे आपस में सानिश करके वादीगण की सम्पनत्त को धोिाधडी
व िार सौ िीसी के आधार पर नवनभन्ि व्यनक्तयों के िाम नवक्रय पत्र
करिा प्रारम्भ कर नदये ििनक प्रनतवादीगण स० 1 ता 4 व 10 का
नववानदत सम्पनत्त के थवानमत्व व कब्िे से कोई सम्िन्ध िही था।
प्रनतवादी स० 10 िे थवयं को सानिर िााँ का मुख्यार प्रदनशित करते
हुये वयिामे नकये गये। ििनक सानिर िााँ का भी नववानदत सम्पनत्त
के कब्िे व थवानमत्व से कोई सम्िन्ध िही था। यह महत्वपूणि है नक
प्रश्नगत वयिामो में भी यह उल्िेि िही है नक प्रनतवादीगण स० 1
व सानिर िााँ तथा प्रनतवादी सo 10 के पास उक्त सम्पनत्त नकस
आधार पर आयी है। मौके पर वादीगण का ही कब्िा व दिि है।
वादीगण द्वारा कराया गया कुछ निमािण मौके पर मौिूद है। वादीगण
की मााँ िे अपिे िीविकाि में नववानदत भूनम की प्िॉनटंग करिे हेतु
कुछ राथते ििाये थे िोनक मौके पर मौिूद हैं। श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ िे
कुछ सम्पनत्त अपिे िीविकाि में िेि दी थी निसका नववरण पूवि में
नदया िा िुका है। शेर् सम्पनत्त वादीगण की है तथा नकसी अन्य का
उक्त सम्पनत्त पर कोई कब्िा व अनधकार िही है।

13यहनक वादीगण की सम्पनत्त में िये िािे का निमािण
िगरपानिका पररर्द रामपुर द्वारा कुछ वर्ि पूवि नकया गया। उक्त िािों
से वादीगण को भी िाभ था इस कारण वादीगण िे उक्त िािों के
निमािण में कोई आपनत्त िही की।

14 . यहनक वादीगण िे उपनििन्धक कायािय, तहसीि
सदर नििा रामपुर में निरीिण कराया तो पता िगा नक वादीगण की
अिुपनथथनत में तथा श्रीमनत रईस िहााँ की वृद्धावथथा व अनशनित
होिे का प्रनतवादीगण िे िाभ उठाया है तथा वाथतनवक थवानमयों की
नििा सहमनत व िािकारी के सम्पनत्त के ियिामें करा नदये, निसका
प्रनतवादीगण को कोई अनधकार िही था।

15 यहनक निरीिण से वादीगण को नववानदत भूनम के िो
नवक्रय पत्र प्राप्त हुये उिका नववरण वाद पत्र के साथ संिग्ि अिुसूिी
"ि" में वनणित है। यह सभी नवक्रय पत्र वादीगण की नववानदत
सम्पनत्त से सम्िनन्धत है तथा शून्य व निष्प्रभावी है। नवक्रय पत्रों का
ज्ञाि वादीगण को िगभग । वर्ि पूवि हुआ है। मुआयिा करिे व
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िकिे प्राप्त करिे में तथा नववानदत भूनम का िक्शा ििवािे में
वादीगण को काफी समय िग गया वादीगण अपिी ओर से कोई देर
नकये नििा प्रथतुत वाद वाथते उद् घोर्णा व थथाई निर्ेधाज्ञा दायर
कर रहे है।

16. यहनक वाद पत्र के साथ संिग्ि अिुसूिी 'ि' में वनणित
सभी ियिामें निःशून्य व निष्प्रभावी एंव अवैध है। उक्त नवक्रय पत्रों
के आधार पर प्रनतवादीगण को नववानदत सम्पनत्त में कोई हक व
अनधकार प्राप्त िही होते है। प्रश्नगत नवक्रय पत्रों के अनथतत्व में रहिे
से वादीगण के अनधकारों पर प्रनतकूि प्रभाव पडिे का ितरा है।

17. यहनक प्रनतवादीगण मौके पर नववानदत सम्पनत्त पर
कब्िा करके निमािण कर िेिे हेतु प्रयासरत है नपछिे 3 माह से
प्रनतवादीगण व वादीगण का इस सम्िन्ध में नववाद िि रहा है।
वादीगण िे पुनिस की सहायता से प्रनतवादीगण को मौके पर कब्िा
कर निमािण करिे से रोका है नकन्तु वादीगण की उपनथथनत में नदिांक
22.03.2019 को कुछ प्रनतवादीगण मौके पर आ गये तथा
उन्होिे कहा नक िैसे ही तुम िोग रामपुर से अपिे काम पर वापस
िाओगे तो हम मौके पर िाकर कब्िा कर िेगे ऐसी नथथनत में
वादीगण के पास प्रथतुत वाद वाथते उद्घोर्णा व निर्ेधाज्ञा "दायर
करिे के अनतररक्त अन्य कोई नवकल्प िही है।

18. यहनक प्रनतवादी सईद अहमद द्वारा नववानदत सम्पनत्त के
एक भाग को शौकत अिी से प्राप्त होिा कहकर एक निर्ेधाज्ञा का
वाद मूिवाद स० 96 / 2018 सईद अहमद प्रनत अिाउद्दीि
आनद वादीगण के नवरूद्ध योनित नकया गया वाद में प्रनतवादीगण
(प्रथतुत वाद के वादी) द्वारा प्रनतवाद पत्र प्रथतुत नकया गया तथा
नसनवि िि (कनिष्ठ िण्ड) रामपुर द्वारा आदेश नदिॉकी
1.10.2018 से उक्त सईद अहमद का थवानमत्व िा मािते हुये
उिका निर्ेधाज्ञा प्राथिा पत्र निरथत कर नदया गया।

19 यह यनद प्रनतवादीगण को मौके पर कब्िा करिे से व
निमािण करिे से िही रोका गया तो वादीगण की अपूणिीय िनत
होगी तथा मौके की नथथनत पररवनतित हो िायेगी एवं अिावश्यक
मुकदमेिािी भी प्रारम्भ हो िायेगी।

20. यहनक प्रनतवादीगण स० 10 द्वारा थवयं को सानिर िां
का मुख्तारेआम प्रदनशित करते हुये नवक्रय पत्र निष्पानदत नकये गये हैं
ििनक सानिर अिी का िानसर िां से कोई ररश्ता िही था कनथत
मुख्तारिामा भी िािी व फिी अनभिेि है। प्रनतवादीगण स० 5 ता
7 सानिर िॉ के वाररसाि है। सानिर िााँ का नववानदत सम्पनत्त में
कोई थवामीत्व हक व अनधकार व कव्िा िहीं था इस कारण उन्हें
नववानदत सम्पनत्त के सम्िन्ध में नकसी को अपिा मुख्तार ििािे का
कोई अनधकार िही था।

21 यहनक मौ० शानकर के पि में एक नवक्रय पत्र निष्पानदत
हुआ नकन्तु उिका थवगिवास हो िुका है और प्रनतवादीगण स. 49
ता 54 उिके वाररसाि है।

22 यहनक वाद के निये वाद कारण उपरोक्त तथ्यों से तथा
अन्त में नदिांक 22. 03.2019 को प्रनतवादीगण द्वारा मौके पर
आकर ििरदथती कब्िा कर निमािण कर िेिे की धमकी देिे से
वादीगण को प्रनतवादीगण के नवरुद्ध न्यायािय के िेत्रानधकार में
हानसि व पैदा हुआ तथा श्रीमाि िी को प्रथतुत वाद सुििे व निणीत
करिे का नविारानधकार प्राप्त है।

23 यहनक वाद का मूल्याकि वाथते नविारानधकार
वाितअिुतोर् क व ि ● नववानदत सम्पनत्त की अिुमानित िािारू
कीमत 3,00,000/- रूपये, 3,00,000/- तथा िाित अिुतोर्
ग नववानदत सम्पनत्त की अिुमानित िािारू कीमत 3,00,000/-
कुि 9,00,000/- नकया िाता है तथा न्याय शुल्क िावत
अिुतोर् क एंव ि उदघोर्णा के निये निधािररत अनधकतम न्याय
शुल्क 200/- रूपये, 200/- रूपये तथा न्याय शुल्क यावत
अिुतोर् ग निर्ेधाज्ञा के निये निधािररत अनधकतम न्याय शुल्क
500/- कुि 900 / - का अदा नकया िाता है िोनक पयािप्त है।

24. यहनक वादीगण निम्िनिनित अिुतोर् प्राप्त करिे के
अनधकारी है-

क. यहनक उदघोर्णा की आज्ञनप्त के द्वारा यह घोनर्त नकया
िाये नक वादीगण नववानदत सम्पनत्त नथथत मो० किकत्ता तहसीि
सदर नििा रामपुर, निसको वाद पत्र के साथ संिग्ि मािनित्र में
िाि रंग हरे रंग तथा पीिे रंग से प्रदनशित नकया गया है, के तन्हा
मानिक व कानवि है तथा प्रनतवादीगण का उक्त सम्पनत्त के
थवानमत्व व कब्िे से कोई सम्िन्ध िही है।

ि . यहनक उदघोर्णा की आज्ञनप्त के द्वारा यह घोनर्त नकया
िाये नक वाद पत्र के साथ संिग्ि अिुसूिी ि में वनणित सभी नवक्रय
पत्र निशून्य व निष्प्रभावी है तथा उिके आधार पर प्रनतवादीगण को
'नववानदत सम्पनत्त में कोई हक व अनधकार प्राप्त िहीं होते है।

ग . यहनक थथाई निर्ेधाज्ञा की आज्ञनप्त के द्वारा प्रनतवादीगण
को थवयं ,अपिे ररश्तेदाराि, ऐिेन्टाि कारकुिाि व िौकराि आनद के
द्वारा वादीगण की नववानदत सम्पनत्त नथथत मौ० किकत्ता तहसीि
सदर नििा रामपुर, निसको वाद पत्र के साथ सिग्ि मािनित्र मे
पीिे रंग, हरे रंग तथा िाि रंग से प्रदनशित नकया गया है. में
वादीगण के कब्िे में नकसी भी प्रकार से से हथतिेप करिे से तथा
सम्पनत्त को नवक्रय द्वारा या अन्य नकसी प्रकार से अन्तररत करिे से
सदैव के निये निनर्द्ध कर नदया िाये।

घ. यहनक वाद की वाद व्यय व हिाि ििाि मुकदमा भी
वादीगण को प्रनतवादीगण से नदिवाया िाये।

ड. यहनक अन्य अिुतोर्, िो न्यायािय वादीगण के पि में
उनित समझे वह भी वादीगण को प्रनतवादीगण से नदिवाया िाये।

सत्यापि:- उपरोक्त वाद पत्र के पैरा स० 1 ता 21 व 24
वादीगण हमारे नििी ज्ञाि व नवश्वास के आधार पर तथा प्रथतर स०
4 All. Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
345
23 के अनभकथि नवनधक परामशि के आधार पर सही व सत्य है,
निसमें िा कुछ झूठ है और िाही कुछ नछपाया गया है, निसकी
तथदीक आि नदिांक 03.04.2019 को रामपुर में की गई।"

22. It is also not in dispute that nearly
for the same dispute, the present criminal
case is the fourth which has been lodged by
opposite party no.2 against the applicant.
Earlier opposite party no.2 has moved an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and the same has been registered as Misc.
Case No. 181/11 of 2019 (Nihaluddin Vs.
Mohd. Akbar and others), which was
rejected by the court below vide order
dated 14th August, 2019. After dismissal of
the aforesaid application filed by opposite
party no.2 under Section 156 (3), an FIR
being Case Crime No. 39 of 2020 under
Section 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. was
lodged by opposite party no.2 against the
applicant wherein after investigation, final
report has been submitted against the
applicant and no protest petition was filed
till date. After that opposite party no.2
lodged the present FIR and thereafter he
has also filed a complaint being Complaint
Case No. 2537 of 2021 (Nihaluddin Vs.
Nasir Khan), under Section 417, 452, 323,
504 I.P.C. The proceedings of the aforesaid
complaint case have been stayed by this
Court vide order dated 20th October, 2022
passed in Application U/s 482 No. 27887 of
2022 (Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. and
another).

Legal Issues, which emerge in both
the applications

23. The veracity of the facts alleged
by the applicant and the opposite party no.2
can only be ascertained on the basis of
evidence and documents by a civil court of
competent jurisdiction. The dispute in
question is purely of civil nature and
opposite party no.2 has already instituted a
civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the
facts and circumstances of this case,
initiating criminal proceedings by opposite
party no.2 against the applicant is clearly
an abuse of the process of the court. Scope
and ambit of courts powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C.

24. The Apex Court in a number of
cases has laid down the scope and ambit of
court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Every High Court has inherent power to act
ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. Inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the
Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice.

25. Inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. though having wide scope is to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
great caution and only when such exercise
is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in this section itself. Authority of the
court exists for the advancement of justice.
If any abuse of the process leading to
injustice is brought to the notice of the
court, then the Court would be justified in
preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in
the Statute.

26. It is also important for this Court
to notice that the powers possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are
very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise.
The court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court
should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where all the
facts are incomplete and hazy; more so,
when the evidence has not been collected
and produced before the court and the
issues involved, whether factual or legal,
are of such magnitude that they cannot be
seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard and
fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases
in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceedings at any stage.

CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT

27. In the case of State of Haryana
Vs. Bhajan Lal (Supra), the Apex Court for
exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has framed following guidelines:

(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."

28. The Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy &
Others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 has
observed that the wholesome power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court
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 powers, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purpose. A court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
4 All. Nasir Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
347
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.
This case has been followed in a large
number of subsequent cases of this court
and other courts.

29. The Apex Court in the case of
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others
Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre &
Others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 has
observed that the legal position is well
settled that when a prosecution at the initial
stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima
facie establish the offence.