Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2581 (ALL)

Manik Chandra Singh v. State of U. P.

2010-08-25

A.K.ROOPANWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT: A. K. Roopanwal, J. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the charge sheet submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 40 of 2004, u/s 366, 367, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 342 I.P.C. Police Station Sarai Inayat, Phoolpur, District Allahabad. It appears from the record that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by O.P. No. 2, Ram Lal Gupta, against the applicants in the court below alleging therein that he alongwith his brother Shyam Lal Gupta are the Bhumidhars of Plot No. 386 area 0.23 hectare situate in Village Sahso, Pargana Jhusi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad. On 12.11.2002 the applicants took him and his brother to their house and there they were administered liquor and an agreement of sale of 22x10 Ft. of land in the above plot was got executed in their favour. O.P. No. 2 and his brother were kept confined in the house of the accused persons for 2-3 days and were threatened that in case they disclosed the factum of execution of the agreement of sale they would be killed. No such agreement of sale was ever executed by O.P. No. 2 and his brother. He moved an application on 14.11.2002 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Phoolpur, District Allahabad, and prayed for non-registration of the agreement of sale. 2. The above application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered and investigated by the police. After investigation charge against the applicants u/s 366, 367, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 342 I.P.C. was submitted. The affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Heard Mr. N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Shukla that even if all the allegations as contained in the FIR regarding which the evidence was collected are accepted to be true on their face value that cannot form the basis for the criminal trial. The allegations related to the validity or invalidity of the agreement of sale. The fact as to whether the agreement of sale was obtained in the manner as alleged in the FIR or not cannot be decided by a criminal court as it is solely within the arena of the Civil Court to decide the same. The allegations related to the validity or invalidity of the agreement of sale. The fact as to whether the agreement of sale was obtained in the manner as alleged in the FIR or not cannot be decided by a criminal court as it is solely within the arena of the Civil Court to decide the same. If the criminal court is allowed to decide the above controversy and the civil court finally decides that agreement of sale was a validly executed document then certainly there would be two different judgments of the courts and if the accused - applicants remained in jail even for a day that day can not be returned. 3. To the above, it has been argued by Mr. Srivastava that there is no bar that the criminal proceedings cannot go on when the civil proceedings are pending. He also argued that the conduct of the applicants has been such that they are not entitled to any relief. According to him, after the institution of the criminal proceedings a case for specific performance of contract was filed by the applicants in the concerned civil court. In that court an imposter was introduced by them and through him a written statement was got filed. When this fact came to the knowledge of O.P. No. 2, he complained to the concerned civil court and the concerned civil court took cognizance and ultimately the written statement earlier filed by the imposter was taken back. In this view of the matter, it can safely be said that the attempt to get the written statement filed through an imposter by the applicants shows that the version of the applicants is wrong and whatever was said in the FIR of O.P. No. 2 is correct and therefore, no indulgence should be given in the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. more particularly when such exercise should be sparingly done. It is no doubt true that there is no bar in parallel civil and criminal proceedings regarding the matter in issue but that should be in a very exceptional case. A purely civil proceeding should not be allowed to be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. It is no doubt true that there is no bar in parallel civil and criminal proceedings regarding the matter in issue but that should be in a very exceptional case. A purely civil proceeding should not be allowed to be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. Meaning thereby that the criminal proceedings should not be a camouflage to the civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings should not be used for pressurising other side for dropping the civil proceedings or civil action taken by him or her. My view is fortified by the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2008(1) ALJ 40 (SC), Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. 4. In view of the above discussion, if we analyse the facts of the present case, we would come to know that the agreement of sale, which is alleged to be a fabricated document by O.P. No. 2, is a registered document. This document would have been presented before the Sub Registrar for registration where O.P. No. 2 had ample opportunity to say that he had not executed the document. Moreover, u/s 69 of the Registration Act there is presumption of execution in the case of a registered document unless it is otherwise proved. The negation of a registered document can only be done through the Civil Court and because the civil court is competent enough to decide the issue as to whether the execution of the document was a valid one or it was actuated by fraud or coercion, hence the civil court must be left with sole discretion to decide about the validity or invalidity of the registered document. The criminal court should not lay its hand in such matters. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the view that inspite of the fact that it is alleged that a written statement was initially got filed through an imposter and the agreement of sale could be a document manipulated by the applicants, there can be no propriety to stop the hands of the Civil Court to analyse the matter as to whether the agreement of sale was a validly executed document or not. Thus, I do feel that it is a case where the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue until the matter is finally decided by the civil court. It was also argued by Mr. Thus, I do feel that it is a case where the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue until the matter is finally decided by the civil court. It was also argued by Mr. Srivastava that prior to the filing of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. another application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicants, which was dismissed by the High Court, therefore, this application is not maintainable. 5. To the above, it has been argued by Mr. Shukla that the previous application was for quashing of the non-bailable warrant issued in the aforesaid criminal proceedings and that was not a case in which the charge sheet was challenged and thus, there is no bar in the filing of the present application. I feel that when the previous application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for the quashing of the non-bailable warrant, there can be no bar in filing the application for quashing the whole proceedings of the criminal case as the prayer in both the applications are different. Consequently, this application is finally disposed of with the direction that the criminal proceedings on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 40 of 2004, u/s 366, 367, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 342 I.P.C. Police Station Sarai Inayat, Phoolpur, District Allahabad, shall remain stayed till the pendency of the civil proceedings initiated by the applicants and the criminal court shall continue with the proceedings in case the applicants fail before the civil court.