Sardar Ali Khan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through … on 24 January, 2020


Supreme Court of India

Sardar Ali Khan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through … on 24 January, 2020

Author: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy

                                                         1

                                                                              REPORTABLE


                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2020
                                 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3627 of 2018)



                         Sardar Ali Khan                                     …Appellant


                                                             vs

                         The State of Uttar Pradesh
                         through Principal Secretary
                         Home Department & Anr.                           ...Respondents



                                                 JUDGMENT

R.Subhash Reddy,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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 IPC, aggrieved by an order dated 12th March,
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2020.01.24
17:16:06 IST
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Reason:

Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5684

of 2016. By the aforesaid impugned order, application
2

filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

is dismissed by the High Court.

3. We have heard Sri Prashant Bhushan learned counsel

assisted by Sri Omanakuttan K.K. and Sri Cheryl

D’Souza, Advocates, for the appellant and Sri Sudarshan

Rajan, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent/complainant.

4. 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 29th December, 1993, registered on 5th January,

1994. Faheem Ali Khan died on 3rd December, 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 16th November, 1998.

5. 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
3

No.160 of 2008. In the above said suit the 2nd

respondent has claimed the following relief:-

“(A) That the suit of the applicant should
be declare 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 25/01/1994
and the photocopy of which was entered on
page number 65 of the book at people 111-
252 at serial number 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 20/01/1994,
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.”

6. 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
4

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. Appeal Nos. 30 and 27 of 2009

filed by the appellant whereas the respondent no.2 had

filed Misc Appeal 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.

7. On 10th April, 2012, brother of the appellant,

Wasim Ali Khan filed a complaint under Section 200

Cr.P.C. against the 2nd respondent herein alleging that

he had stolen the original sale deed from the mutation

file. On 20th September, 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
5

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 Cr.P.C for quashing

of the above said proceedings and the summoning order

issued by the Magistrate. On such application filed,

the impugned order is passed by High Court rejecting

the same.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we

have perused the impugned order and other material

placed on record.

9. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant

has purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated

29th December,1993 which was registered on 5th January,

1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd

December, 1997. Though the registered sale deed is of

1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is pending in

O.S. 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
6

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 2 nd 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 th

January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14

years. Even after filing of the suit on 24 th August,

2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay in filing

the criminal complaint against the appellant herein.
7

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. 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 th March, 2018

passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5684 of

2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is

set aside, consequently, the application filed by the

appellant under Section 482, Cr.P.C. stands allowed by

quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.708 of
8

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 Cr.P.C. It is open

for the civil court to decide the various issues in the

pending suits on their own merits, uninfluenced by this

order.

………………………J.

(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

………………………J.

(R. SUBHASH REDDY)

NEW DELHI;

January 24,2020



Source link