Allahabad High Court
Smt Munni Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147979 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 238 of 2025 Court No. - 78 (SL No.15) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 19.09.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.643 of 2023 (Basant Lal Yadav vs. Shashi Kala and Others) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Lalganj, District- Mirzapur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Mirzapur.
3. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that the applicants no.1 and 2 are the bonafide purchasers, who had purchased the agricultural land from the father of the opposite party no.2 on 22.06.2017, by way of a registered sale deed. Subsequent thereto, the opposite party no.2 obtained a Death Certificate on 20.01.2023, whereby it is declared that the death of the father of the opposite party no.2 had taken place on 21.07.1997. Thereupon, he filed the instant complaint case, against the applicants herein alleging therein that the said sale deed dated 22.06.2017 was obtained by the applicants by impersonating someone else as the father of the opposite party no.2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the allegation is prima facie false as according to the opposite party no.2 the death of the father of the opposite party no.2 had taken place on 21.07.1997, however, he did not get his name mutated in the revenue records for about 25 to 26 years that itself shows that the father of the opposite party no.2 has died after the execution of the sale deed on 22.06.2017 and thereupon, the instant complaint case has been lodged making out a concocted and false story by obtaining a Death Certificate. Therefore, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.06.2017, executed by the father of the opposite party no.2 in favor of the applicants no.1 and 2. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, which is being given a criminal color by lodging the instant complaint for the same cause of action. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the sale deed executed on 22.06.2017, is a registered document and presumption of that document is also applicable and pursuant to the said document mutation has also been done in favour of the appellants no.1 and 2.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar : Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, and a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.01.2024 in Application under Section 482 No. 4182 of 2022 (Sumitra Verma and Another vs. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Another).
7. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the Death Certificate issued on 20.01.2023, is a public document and a presumption shall be made with regard to the validity of the said document unless declared invalid or illegal. Thus, from the presence of the said document, it is prima facie established that the death of the father of the opposite party no.2 has taken place on 21.07.1997, thus, a prima facie allegation of the complaint appears to be correct. Since, on the basis of the documents available on record, a prima facie case is made out, no interference is called for in the instant case while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The allegations as made in the complaint, which is based on a Death Certificate issued on 20.01.2023 by the Gram Panchayat Development Officer, which is a public document, a prima facie case appears to have been made out against the applicants, that the sale deed dated 22.06.2017 was obtained by applicants no.1 and 2 through impersonation of the father of opposite party no.2. The Court has made a specific query whether the said Death Certificate has ever been challenged by the applicants, the answer is in negative. Thus, until the validity of the said Death Certificate is doubted, a presumption shall be made that the said document was a valid, thus, a prima facie case of impersonation on the part of the applicants is prima facie established.
9. Paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the judgement of Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), reads as under:
“6. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhubani, by order dated 14-12-2005 rejected the application for discharge holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges. The accused thereafter filed an application under Section 482 CrPC before the Patna High Court for quashing the order dated 14-12-2005. In the meanwhile charges were framed against the accused. The High Court dismissed the petition observing that the learned Magistrate had found sufficient material showing the complicity of the accused in the crime. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
7. The question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused. The contention of the appellant is that if the allegations made in the complaint and FIR, even if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients of any offence of forgery (Sections 467 and 471) or cheating (Section 420) or insult (Section 504) or wrongful restraint (Section 341) or causing hurt (Section 323) and there was no other material to show any offence and therefore, their application ought to have been accepted.”
10. In Sumitra Verma (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:
“8. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has next alleged that the accused persons have prepared forged rent receipts and in support of this contention, he has relied upon the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) South, Court No. 24, Sultanpur in Suit No. 515 of 2018 filed by late Sabhajeet Verma, whereby the application for temporary injunction filed in that suit has been rejected. It is mentioned in the order that the plaintiff had filed rent receipts, which are not on any format and which do not bear any signature of the landlord or the tenant. When there is no signature of any person on the receipts, it cannot be said that the receipts are forged.
9. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 726, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8)
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.”
11. In 2021 SCC Online SC 873, Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“35. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
36. The following observations made by this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy may be relevant to note at this stage:–
“The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent power, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature.”
11. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In Paramjeet Batra (supra) the Apex Court has categorically observed that where the complaints discloses a civil transactions and the same also has a criminal texture, then, it is the duty of the High Court concerned, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to see whether the dispute which is essentially of a civil in nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence or some elements of criminal nature are involved in the said complaint case.
13. Since, in the instant case a categorical allegations has been made on the part of the opposite party no.2 that his father has died on 21.07.1997 and his Death Certificate is also available on record, thus, a prima facie case has been established that the said alleged sale deed dated 22.06.2017 was obtained by the applicants by impersonation of someone as the father of the opposite party no.2. If a person obtains a document by impersonating a dead person, thus, a clear and categorical case of criminal nature is made out, though, he may have taken advantage of such document, he may have taken advantage out of the said documents with regard to which the civil proceedings are pending between the parties, with the allegation that the said document is a forge document. That merely because the civil proceedings have been initiated out of such documents the pendency of the civil proceedings would not wash out the criminal act done by such person. Since, a prima facie case is made out from the allegations made and the material available on record, this Court do not find any good reason to quash the proceedings and accordingly the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
August 25, 2025
Shubham Arya
[ad_1]
Source link