# Sanjay Gaur Advocate & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 238
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 885 of 2013
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-gaur-advocate-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-54875
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of criminal
proceedings in civil disputes - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 - When
a dispute is essentially of a civil nature,
criminal
proceedings
should
not
be
permitted to continue, especially where
there is an unexplained delay in filing the
FIR
and
the
allegations
lack
substance.(Para - 9,12)
Controversy between parties revolves around
transfer of title of land - complainant alleged
that accused fraudulently executed a sale deed
by forging signatures - civil suit was already
pending regarding the same property - an ex
parte decree was initially passed but later set
aside - complainant, instead of pursuing civil
remedies, filed a criminal case leading to the
filing of a charge sheet. (Para - 7,8)
HELD:- Dispute between the parties was purely
of civil nature. No offence as alleged by the
complainant was made out. A fit case for
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. as the continuation of the criminal
proceedings was nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.(Para - 9,12)

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

List of Cases cited:

## Text

238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the
order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the
learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2023
(Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev
Krishna & 2 others) and order dated
16.03.2023 passed by the learned CJM,
Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1041/2023
(Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev
Krishna & 2 others). Both the trial Courts
have considered all the contentions as well
as the Judgments referred by the applicant
and has on due appreciation of the facts of
the present case has rightly rejected the
application under Section 340 of the Cr.
P.C.

15. As a sequel to above, the
application lacks merits and is hereby
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 1 ILRA 238
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 885 of 2013

Sanjay Gaur Advocate & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
R.N.S. Chauhan, Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui,
Sushil Kumar Singh, Sushil Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advcocate, Munni Lal Yadav, Pradeep
Kumar Tripathi

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of criminal
proceedings in civil disputes - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 - When
a dispute is essentially of a civil nature,
criminal
proceedings
should
not
be
permitted to continue, especially where
there is an unexplained delay in filing the
FIR
and
the
allegations
lack
substance.(Para - 9,12)
Controversy between parties revolves around
transfer of title of land - complainant alleged
that accused fraudulently executed a sale deed
by forging signatures - civil suit was already
pending regarding the same property - an ex
parte decree was initially passed but later set
aside - complainant, instead of pursuing civil
remedies, filed a criminal case leading to the
filing of a charge sheet. (Para - 7,8)
HELD:- Dispute between the parties was purely
of civil nature. No offence as alleged by the
complainant was made out. A fit case for
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. as the continuation of the criminal
proceedings was nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.(Para - 9,12)

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

List of Cases cited:

1. Paramjeet Batra Vs St. of Uttarakhand & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012

2. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.,
1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicants have approached this
Court through this application under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the impugned charge sheet
under
Section
173(2)
Cr.P.C.
dated
24.3.2012,
cognizance
order
dated
30.7.2012 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2618 of
1 All. Sanjay Gaur Advocate & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
239
2011, titled State Vs. Anees Khan and
others, arising out of Case Crime No. 156
of 2011, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur, District
Sitapur.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the
petition are that on the basis of a written
complaint given by Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
Advocate-opposite party no.2, the above
noticed case crime was registered, wherein
it is alleged that the land comprised in Gata
No. 592 measuring 0.809 hectares, owned
by Savitri Devi D/o Awadh Baksh Singh
was purchased by complainant through
Jamuna Prasad S/o Puttu Lal. In the said
sale deed, Jamuna Prasad got entered names
of his daghter-in-law Gyanwati and his friend
Anees Khan, therefore, a civil suit bearing no.
132 of 2004, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. Savitri
Devi and others was filed to seek a decree of
declaration for correction of the said sale
deed. The suit was decreed in favour of the
complainant-opposite party no.2 and the
names of Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and
Anees Khan were ordered to be removed.
Later on, Sanjay Gaur S/o Puttu Lal
(applicant no.1) in connivance with his
relatives namely, Gyanwati W/o Jay Prakash
and Anees Khan S/o Hasan Khan entered into
a conspiracy to grab 3/4th share of the
complainant's holding, who by forging his
signatures got prepared documents and got
executed a sale deed in his favour. As per the
allegations, the witnesses to the instrument of
sale also facilitated the commission of crime.
On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R.
was registered for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Laharpur,
District Sitapur.

3. After registration of the case, the
investigation was carried out and through
the impugned final report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet against the
applicants
was
filed.
Hence,
this
application.

4. Learned counsel for applicants has
argued that the allegations contained in the
F.I.R itself shows that the complainantopposite party no.2 has already filed a civil
suit bearing no. 132 of 2004, and the case
of the prosecution is based upon the
documentary material, which shows that
the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature,
but in order to abuse of the process of law,
the complainant has falsely implicated the
applicants in the impugned criminal case.
Learned
counsel
submits
that
the
complainant acquired right, title and
interest in the suit property by virtue of sale
deed dated 11.3.1996 and as per this,
vendor Savitri Devi had transferred all her
rights in the said property in favour of four
purchasers namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
Jamuna Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan,
and the instrument of sale is a registered
instrument, which bears the signatures of
all the parties including the witnesses,
therefore, there cannot be a doubt about the
number of purchasers.

5. Learned counsel for applicants has
further submitted that the suit initially filed
by the complainant-opposite party no.2
seeking a decree of declaration for
correction and removal of the names of
other three purchasers was decreed in
favour of complainant vide ex parte decree
dated 16.10.2006, but the said decree was
later on set aside on 26.10.2007, as
application under Order IX Rule 13 Code
of Civil Procedure filed by aggrieved cosharers was allowed. Learned counsel
states that the suit is still pending for
adjudication, wherein the applicant no.1
has also been impleaded on the basis of
sale deed dated 20.7.2007 executed by his
three vendors, who became co-sharer of the
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant-opposite party no.2, and in
this background, it is evident that the
registration of F.I.R. on 4.6.2011 is
nothing, but an abuse of the process of law
to convert a civil dispute into a criminal
case. According to learned counsel, the
applicant nos. 2 to 4 are the witnesses to
the sale deed dated 20.7.2007, whereas the
applicant no.5 has been impleaded merely
on the ground that he is a clerk with the
applicant no.1-Advocate. He prays that the
impugned
charge
sheet
as
well
as
impugned cognizance order be set aside.

6. The prayer is opposed by learned
counsel for complainant-opposite party
no.2, who while referring to the counter
affidavit has argued that merely because a
civil suit is pending between the parties, it
would
not
mean
that
the
criminal
proceedings cannot continue, particularly
when the allegations in the F.I.R. prima
facie show the commission of offences of
forgery and cheating. Learned counsel
submits that the ex parte decree dated
16.10.2006 conferred absolute title upon
the complainant-opposite party no.2 as the
names of other three purchasers contained
in the sale deed dated 11.3.1996 were
directed to be removed, therefore, the sale
deed dated 20.7.2007 executed by the three
alleged co-purchasers of opposite party
no.2 would not pass a valid title in favour
of subsequent purchaser-applicant no.1.
Learned counsel submits that the alleged
title in favour of the vendors of applicant
no.1 stood taken away, and the execution of
sale deed dated 20.7.2007 by them is
apparently a result of fraud, committed to
cause wrongful loss to the complainant,
therefore, it would not be a case where the
facts and circumstances of the case do not
constitute the alleged offences. Learned
counsel submits that the investigation
carried out by the Investigating Officer
prima facie shows the involvement of the
accused, who have been rightly sent to face
trial, thus, no interference is called for by
this Court in exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He prays that the
application be dismissed.

7. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed
the prayer on the similar lines, who has
argued that the execution of sale deed dated
20.7.2007 could not have been executed by
the vendors of applicant no.1, therefore, the
alleged offences are made out and the
charge sheet has been filed on the basis of
incriminating
evidence
showing
involvement of the beneficiary Sanjay Gaur
and other accused persons. Learned A.G.A.
further
submits
that
the
prosecution
deserves to be afforded an opportunity to
discharge the onus against the accused, and
otherwise alternatively also the accused can
press their claim before the trial court at the
stage of consideration of the final report
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. He prays that
the application be dismissed.

8. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and considering their
submissions, this Court finds that the
controversy between the parties revolves
around the transfer of title of land
comprised in Gata No. 592 measuring
0.809 hectares, which was originally owned
by Savitri Devi, and she had disposed of
the said land by executing a sale deed dated
11.3.1996, whereby the property was sold
in favour of complainant Rakesh Kumar
Gupta and three others namely, Jamuna
Prasad, Gyanwati and Anees Khan. The
said document has been placed on record
by the applicants as Annexure No.2 of the
restoration application, and a perusal of the
same would show that it does not contain
any overwriting, much less to suggest that
the names of other three purchasers were
1 All. Sanjay Gaur Advocate & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
241
added later with the complainant. This
instrument of sale is a registered document,
which is signed by the parties and thumb
marked also, but there is nothing on record
to show that the complainant ever raised
any objection at the stage of execution of
the document, who has chosen to file the
civil suit on 23.2.2004.

9. No doubt, the ex parte decree was
passed in favour of the complainantopposite party no.2 on 16.10.2006 and the
second sale deed dated 20.7.2007 was
executed by the vendors of applicant no.1
after the said decree, but the ex parte decree
did not survive for long and was set aside
on 26.10.2007. Examining the matter
conversely, and if, for the sake of
arguments, it is assumed that the vendors of
applicant no.1 had no title to pass on
further to applicant no.1, even then the
applicant no.1 cannot be said to have made
a wrongful gain. Besides, the vendors of
applicant no.1, who had executed the sale
deed on 20.7.2007 were not aware that the
title of the subject land acquired by them
alongwith complainant through sale deed
dated 11.3.1996 does not exist with them.

10. Most importantly, the above
background clearly shows that the rights of
the parties would be determined by the civil
court and the parties have already setup
their claims against each other, therefore,
considering this background, this Court has
no hesitation in holding that the dispute
between the parties is purely of civil nature,
and no offence as alleged by the
complainant would be made out. That
apart, there is no explanation behind the
long delay in lodging the criminal case,
which is an after thought and it amounts to
abuse of the process of law.

11. At this juncture, reliance can be
placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand
and
others,
passed
in
Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012,
wherein while examining a similar issue in
the context of exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble
Apex
Court
made
the
following
observations :-

"7.
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 criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of
court."

12. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Haryana and others v. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp(1) Supreme
Court Cases 335, had laid down the
principles and guidelines for exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced below :-
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The following categories of
cases can be stated by way of illustration
wherein the extraordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482, Cr.P.C., 1973 can be
exercised by the High Court 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
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 specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of 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.

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."

13.
Thus,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
it to be a fit case for exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the
continuation of the criminal proceedings is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

14. Resultantly, present application
succeeds and charge sheet dated 24.3.2012,
cognizance / summoning order dated
30.7.2012 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Sitapur in Criminal
Case No. 2618 of 2011, titled State Vs.
1 All. Dilip Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
243
Anees Khan and others, arising out of Case
Crime No. 156 of 2011, under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police
Station Laharpur, District Sitapur and the
proceedings arising therefrom are ordered
to be quashed.

15. The application is allowed.
---------
(2025) 1 ILRA 243
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1251 of 2019

Dilip Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ram Prasad Yadav, Shesh Narain Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 321-On
the application by public prosecutor to
withdraw the criminal case - on the
basis of government order without
mentioning any reason or his opinioncourt should not permit to withdraw
the prosecution- no illegality in the
impugned order.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Abdul Wahab K. Vs St. of Kerala & ors.(2018)
18 SCC 448

2. St. of Kerala Vs K. Ajith & ors. 2021 (17) SCC
318
3. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs U.O.I. & ors.
2021 (20) SCC 599
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Prasad Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Pankaj Shukla, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and Shri Pankaj Srivastava,
learned learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the impugned order
dated
04.09.2017
passed
by
learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 1, Basti in Case No. 1119 of 2017
(State Vs. Dilip Singh), under Sections 384,
352, 504, 506 IPC arising out of Case
Crime No. 419 of 2007, P.S.- Paikoliya,
District- Basti as well as quash the order
dated 31.08.2018 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 122 of 2017 (Dilip Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and another) and prayer made
to allow the application under Section 321
Cr.P.C.

3. The contention of learned counsel
for the applicant is that while rejecting the
application of the State under Section 321
Cr.P.C., the court below had not considered
the fact that on the basis of material no case
is made out against him and this fact was
ignored by the revisional court and both the
impugned orders are absolutely erroneous.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has submitted that while filing
the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C.
State has not mentioned the reason for
withdrawing the prosecution. As the
prosecution can be withdrawn under
Section 321 Cr.P.C. in public interest as
there is no public interest involved in this
case. Therefore, the application under