- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sardar Ali Khan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Home Department And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns Plot No. 102 (renumbered as 102/2) situated in Yahiyapur, Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. The land was originally owned by the late Faheem Ali Khan, father of the second respondent. The appellant claims title under a sale deed dated 29-12-1993, registered on 05-01-1994. Upon Faheem Ali Khan’s death on 03-12-1997, the second respondent succeeded to his estate, and mutation in his favour was completed on 16-11-1998.
Civil litigation commenced in 2008. The second respondent filed Original Suit No. 160/2008 seeking, inter alia, cancellation of the appellant’s sale deed and an injunction. The appellant instituted Original Suit No. 474/2008 for an injunction to protect constructions on the same property. Both suits remain pending; interim orders directed maintenance of status quo, and related civil miscellaneous appeals and writ petitions are also sub judice.
Criminal proceedings began later. On 10-04-2012, the appellant’s brother lodged a complaint against the second respondent alleging theft of the original sale deed. On 20-09-2012, the second respondent filed a private complaint against the appellant and his brother, resulting in Complaint Case No. 708/2012 for offences under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant’s application for discharge was rejected, and his petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings was dismissed by the High Court on 12-03-2018 (Wasim Ali Khan v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 5928). The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the light of pending civil suits concerning the same sale deed and property, continuation of the criminal case constitutes an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the delay in lodging the criminal complaint (approximately eighteen years after registration of the sale deed and four years after filing the civil suit) affects the propriety of the criminal proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The criminal complaint is a belated attempt—filed eighteen years after the sale deed and during ongoing civil litigation—intended to harass the appellant, who is approximately 87 years old.
- No allegation of impersonation or forged signatures was raised in the civil suit; the criminal complaint impermissibly introduces these allegations, amounting to an “improvement” of the civil case.
- Pursuing parallel criminal proceedings when the validity of the sale deed is sub judice before a civil court is an abuse of the judicial process that should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Second Respondent's Arguments
- The criminal complaint is within limitation and therefore maintainable.
- The allegations in the complaint justify prosecution for offences of cheating and forgery.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that the registered sale deed dates back to 1994, while the civil suit challenging its validity was filed in 2008 and the criminal complaint only in 2012. It noted:
- The civil suit contains no accusation of impersonation or forged signatures, undermining the criminal complaint’s allegations of forgery.
- The core dispute—whether the sale deed was fraudulently procured—is already seized of by the competent civil court; criminal proceedings on the same facts would allow the complainant to “improve” his case and constitute harassment.
- The long lapse of time between the sale deed, the civil litigation, and the criminal complaint, combined with the appellant’s advanced age, strengthens the inference of abuse of process.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that allowing the criminal case to proceed would be oppressive and unnecessary, and that the “inherent powers” under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to prevent such abuse.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order dated 12-03-2018 set aside. The appellant’s application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed, thereby quashing Complaint Case No. 708/2012, the associated summoning order, and all consequential proceedings.
Implications: The decision terminates the criminal prosecution against the appellant and reaffirms that when complex civil disputes are already before a competent court, criminal proceedings predicated on the same facts may be quashed to prevent abuse of judicial process. No new legal precedent was created beyond applying settled principles under Section 482 CrPC.
R. Subhash Reddy, J.— Leave granted. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused in Complaint Case No. 708 of 2012, registered in Police Station Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860, aggrieved by an order dated 12-3-2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Wasim Ali Khan v. State of U.P. 2018 SCC OnLine All 5928 By the aforesaid impugned order, application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed by the High Court.
2. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel assisted by Shri Omanakuttan K.K. and Shri Cheryl D'Souza, Advocates, for the appellant and Shri Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent complainant.
3. The dispute relates to Plot No. 102 (measuring 0.101 hectare) which has been renumbered as Plot No. 102/2 situated in Yahiyapur, Post Kaimganj, Pargana Kampil, Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, U.P. Originally, the aforesaid plot was owned by the father of the 2nd respondent late Faheem Ali Khan and the appellant claims purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29-12-1993, registered on 5-1-1994. Faheem Ali Khan died on 3-12-1997 and the 2nd respondent is one of the heirs of late Faheem Ali Khan. For the properties which were inherited upon 2nd respondent on the death of Faheem Ali Khan, mutation was effected on 16-11-1998.
4. The 2nd respondent herein has filed Original Suit No. 160 of 2008 which is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in Farrukhabad District in Case No. 160 of 2008. In the abovesaid suit the 2nd respondent has claimed the following relief:
“(A) That the suit of the applicant should be declared by granting the permanent injunction against the defendant with the directions that the defendant is restrained from illegally and forcibly everything the applicant from the disputed property or any of its part and should not interfere with the peaceful ownership and possession of the applicant.
(AA) The decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 29-12-1993, which was presented for registration on 25-1-1994 and the photocopy of which was entered on p. 65 of the book at people 111-252 at Sl. No. 22 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kayamganj in the letter number 1, cover number 1156 at page number 85/93 at serial number 22 on 20-1-1994, Chile ordered against the defendant and in favour of the applicant and the Sub-Registrar office should be directed to make the entries accordingly.
(B) That the defendant should pay the suit expenses to the applicant.
(C) That any other relief which is deemed appropriate may be granted to the applicant.”
5. With regard to very same plot, the appellant herein also filed a suit in Original Suit No. 474 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from demolishing the constructions made by the appellant on the aforesaid plot. The said suit is also pending in Case No. 474 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj in Farrukhabad District. The aforesaid suits were clubbed and in interlocutory applications filed by the parties, a common order to maintain status quo in respect of land in dispute was passed. Against the interim order, matters were carried in Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 30 and 27 of 2009 filed by the appellant whereas Respondent 2 had filed Misc. Appeals Nos. 28 and 29 of 2009. It is stated that all the said appeals were decided by a common order by the Additional District Judge and application for injunction filed by the appellant was allowed and application filed by the 2nd respondent was dismissed, against which matters were carried further by way of civil miscellaneous writ petitions which are stated to be pending before the High Court and no interim order is passed therein.
6. On 10-4-2012, brother of the appellant, Wasim Ali Khan filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC against the 2nd respondent herein alleging that he had stolen the original sale deed from the mutation file. On 20-9-2012, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint against the appellant and Wasim Ali Khan. On such complaint, a case was registered against the appellant and another for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Initially, the appellant filed an application for discharge which was rejected. Subsequently, he has filed application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the abovesaid proceedings and the summoning order issued by the Magistrate. On such application filed, the impugned order 2018 SCC OnLine All 5928 is passed by the High Court rejecting the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order 2018 SCC OnLine All 5928 and other material placed on record.
8. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29-12-1993 which was registered on 5-1-1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3-12-1997. Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is pending in OS No. 160 of 2008, only in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner. There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before the competent civil court and it is for the civil court to decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed. When the very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Although, it is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The sale deed on which basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant was registered on 5-1-1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even after filing of the suit on 24-8-2008 there is further about 4 years' delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. Allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the process.
9. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of sale deed is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving his case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civil nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2nd respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of law. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 12-3-2018 passed in Wasim Ali Khan v. State of U.P. 2018 SCC OnLine All 5928 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is set aside, consequently, the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC stands allowed by quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 708 of 2012 for offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the file of Police Station Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and consequential orders passed by the Magistrate also stand quashed.
11. It is made clear that the observations and findings recorded in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal arising out of application filed under Section 482 CrPC. It is open for the civil court to decide the various issues in the pending suits on their own merits, uninfluenced by this order.
Alert