SARDAR ALI KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 24-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
SARDAR ALI KHAN
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 161 of  2020)
JANUARY 24, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 418, 419, 420, 467 & 468 and 471 –
A plot was owned by the father of the 2nd respondent and appellant
claimed purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29.12.1993 which
was registered on 05.01.1994 – Father of the 2nd respondent died in
the year 1997 – In 2008, the 2nd respondent filed a suit against the
appellant and sought cancellation of sale deed – In 2012, 2nd
respondent also filed a complaint against the appellant alleging
offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC – Applications
filed by the appellant for discharge were rejected – Subsequently,
application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the above
proceedings, however, the same was rejected by the High Court –
On appeal, held: The registered sale deed of the property in question
was of the year 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit in the year 2008
seeking cancellation of sale deed – There was no allegation of
impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd
respondent  – Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd
respondent filed criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery
and impersonation – When the matter is pending in the Civil Court
regarding the validity of the sale deed, it is for the Civil Court to
decide whether any fraud was played or not by the appellant, on
the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed –
When the same issue was seized up before the Civil Court, the 2nd
respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the
appellant for alleged offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471
IPC – Having regard to serious factual disputes which were of civil
nature, for which civil suits were pending, allowing the 2nd
respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings would
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 145
145
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
amount to abuse of the process of law – Therefore, criminal
proceedings quashed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:  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
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 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 5th January, 1994,
suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years.  Even after filing of the
suit on 24th August, 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.  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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.