JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the opposite party no.2 as well as the order issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner dated 03.12.2021. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri transferred a commercial property/shop, which formed part of house no. 439/167/05, Khasra No. 215 at Mohalla Tahseenganj, District Lucknow, measuring area about 9.293 square meters in the name of the petitioner, it being his ancestral abadi property in his ownership and physical possession. A registered sale deed was executed on 02.03.2016 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The receipts/bills issued by the Jalkal Vibhag, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and the electricity bill in respect of the property all showed the name of Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri, the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is in physical possession of the said property now after its transfer from her husband. The opposite party no.4 is a hardened criminal and at least five FIRs have been registered against him as he was indulging in extortion of several persons. The applicant and her husband were also made victims of such extortion. The husband of the petitioner refused to pay, therefore, the opposite party no.4 filed a false complaint case before the opposite party no.2 bearing complaint no. 2283/2018, through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in which he recorded a false statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Summoning order was, thereafter, issued by the learned trial court on 23.09.2019 and the order of non-bailable warrant was also issued on 03.12.2021 against the applicant and three others. On the basis of such orders passed by the learned trial court the police are harassing the petitioner and her husband. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.4 has not filed any civil suit for cancellation of sale deed of the applicant in any competent court, but has adopted the criminal proceedings through filing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. only to overcome limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.4 has not filed any civil suit for cancellation of sale deed of the applicant in any competent court, but has adopted the criminal proceedings through filing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. only to overcome limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. He has referred to Article 59 of the Scheduled attached to the Limitation Act given period of limitation for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument or decree or a contract being three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or the decree cancelled or set aside or first become known to him. 4. It has been submitted that the sale deed was executed in the year 2016 and become known to the opposite party no.3 much before he filed the application before the learned trial court under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The subject matter in question is purely civil in nature. Learned trial court without application of judicial mind has entertained the application and treated it as a complaint case and issued summoning orders and also non-bailable warrant thus threatening the liberty of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, 'Randheer Singh vs. The State of U.P. & Others decided on 02.09.2021 to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of initiating criminal proceedings where the dispute was purely civil in nature. 6. This Court has perused a copy of the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 4 which is 'Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem va Jadeed, situated at Sajjadia Nagar Colony, Alam Nagar va Tahsinganj, District Lucknow, Registration No. 941-42, “arrayed through” its Daroga/Care Taker, one Mohammad Askari Ali S/o Late Mirza Mohammad Taki, resident of 439/41, Tehseenganj, P.S. Thakurganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow. In the said application the opposite party no.4 i.e. Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs. Jadeed through its Daroga/Care Taker had arrayed husband of the petitioner as respondent no.1, the petitioner as respondent no.2 and two other persons the alleged witnesses of the sale deed as respondent no.3 and respondent no.4, respectively. In the said application the opposite party no.4 i.e. Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs. Jadeed through its Daroga/Care Taker had arrayed husband of the petitioner as respondent no.1, the petitioner as respondent no.2 and two other persons the alleged witnesses of the sale deed as respondent no.3 and respondent no.4, respectively. In the said case explanation was given of the locus of the complainant, Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs. Jadeed registered at 941 and 942 of the registration of Waqf and also the fact that it was the owner and the landlord of the house no. 439/167/05, and Landlord of shop Gulshan Motors, Tehseenganj where the respondent no.1, Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri, the husband of the petitioner no.1 herein, was a tenant since long. The receipt of rent being paid by Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri were also filed with the application. It was stated in the complaint that Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri all of a sudden stopped paying rent to the complainant. On due enquiry from neighbors as also from the office of the Sub-Registrar, it came out that Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri has sold the shop in question to his wife on 02.03.2016. The respondent no.3, namely, Anish Hakim Rizvi and respondent no.4, namely, Sayed Mohd. Naki Ali, had put there signatures as witnesees on the sale deed although they knew since long that Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri was a tenant of the shop in question, which belonged to the Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem Vs. Jadeed as aforesaid. The opposite party no.4 had sent applications/representations to the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board on 17.06.2016, and the Waqf Board had directed him to initiate proceedings against Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri by filing FIR also. Thereafter, requisition was sent to the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow on 24.10.2016, on which no heed was paid. Reminders were sent in September, 2017 also, but no head was paid. On 18.06.2018 the complainant/its Care Taker saw the respondents making construction on the property in question, he tried to stop them from raising such construction as the property belongs to the Waqf but they did not listen and therefore, the complaint was being filed before the learned Magistrate. 7. On 18.06.2018 the complainant/its Care Taker saw the respondents making construction on the property in question, he tried to stop them from raising such construction as the property belongs to the Waqf but they did not listen and therefore, the complaint was being filed before the learned Magistrate. 7. The date of institution of the complainant case is 23.07.2018, the documentary evidence i.e. rent receipts dated 23.03.2016, 22.05.2016 and 21.10.2016 were attached alongwith such complaint relate to letters sent by the Care Taker on 24.10.2016 and 04.09.2017 to the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board and to Senior Superintendent of Police to take action and letter sent by the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board to the District Magistrate dated 04.10.2016 and the reminders sent thereafter. A copy of the sale deed was also filed alongwith said application duly supported by the affidavit. The Rent Receipts have also been made annexures to the complaint. 8. Learned trial court on the basis of statements taken under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. issued the summoning order on 23.09.2019, expressing a prima facie satisfaction that a case under Section 420 IPC has been made out by the complainant. 9. It appears that after summons were issued, the petitioner and her husband did not appear, and therefore, the learned trial court was forced to issue process in the form of non-bailable warrant on 03.12.2021. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randheer Singh (Supra). This Court has carefully perused the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the High Court had dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which he had prayed for quashing of the proceedings in Case Crime No. 5973 of 2020, ‘State Vs. Rajan Kumar’ under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and the charge sheet and the summoning order. The facts of the case as mentioned in the judgement are that one Arjun Dev and his wife, namely, Bela Rani were recorded tenure holders of certain plots of land and they executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant no.1, Rajan Kumar (who had since died). Rajan Kumar executed sale deed in favour of the appellants, Randheer Singh and his family members on various dates in between July or August, 2014. Rajan Kumar executed sale deed in favour of the appellants, Randheer Singh and his family members on various dates in between July or August, 2014. The name of the appellant and others were mutated in the revenue records. Smt. Beena Srivastava had filed objections before the Naib Tehsildar which were rejected. Smt. Beena Srivatava also filed Original Suit No. 971 of 2014 for cancellation of the Power of Attorney and sale deed executed by Rajan Kumar. The suit was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by learned trial court which order was challenged in the First Appeal which was partly allowed and the matter remanded to the learned trial court with a direction that it should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court. Aggrieved by such order of the High Court Smt. Beena Srivastava had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court also which Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.09.2016. In the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant before the High Court, it has also been submitted that Smt. Beena Srivastava and her husband had also filed a Contempt Application, which was also dismissed by the High Court in February, 2016. When Smt. Beena Srivastava could not get any relief from the trial court right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, she filed Writ Petition No. 12275 of 2016, which was dismissed on 28.03.2016. Smt. Beena Srivastava's son, Dr. Virat Swaroop Saxena also filed a Contempt Application which had been dismissed in July, 2006. Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 28.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 12275 of 2016, The appellant, Randheer Singh instituted an Original Suit No. 608 of 2016 praying for permanent injunction in respect of the plot in question, and a temporary injunction was also granted by the learned trial court on 12.04.2016. Having failed to get relief from various courts, Smt. Beena Srivastava brought in other persons into the picture to harass the appellant, thereafter. The Power of Attorney holder of Bela Rani, namely, Rajan Kumar (since deceased) had executed as sale deed in June, 2017 in favour of the appellant after receiving the sale consideration. A supplementary sale deed was also executed thereafter on 16.09.2017 and the appellant’s name was mutated in the revenue record. The Power of Attorney holder of Bela Rani, namely, Rajan Kumar (since deceased) had executed as sale deed in June, 2017 in favour of the appellant after receiving the sale consideration. A supplementary sale deed was also executed thereafter on 16.09.2017 and the appellant’s name was mutated in the revenue record. The respondent No.2 filed an FIR wherein he stated that the applicant had purchased one house alongwith courtyard in which shops were also present from certain persons by way of registered sale deed and after such sale deed was executed he came to know that in the meantime another person, namely, Rajan Kumar (since deceased) on the basis of a false Power of Attorney of Bela Rani executed a sale deed to Randheer Singh(the appellant), whereas Bela Rani had no right to sell the said house which belonged to Afroz Athar and on the basis of the same false sale deed, Randheer Singh and Rajan Kumar were attempting to trespass the house of the applicant and had broken open the lock, of which knowledge was drived by the applicant/informant on the following morning and therefore, the FIR was lodged. Such FIR was lodged on 16.09.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent with regard to the scope of interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the High Court, observed that the underlying civil dispute between the parties was subject matters of diverse civil proceedings which were pending between the appellant and the private respondent in the concerned civil court and the same shall obviously be decided on their own merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question ‘whether any criminal offence was disclosed in the FIR so far as the appellant was concerned’; it observed that Rajan Kumar (since deceased) the Power of Attorney holder was also an appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but he had since died and therefore proceedings had abated against him. The only allegation against the appellant was that he had purchased the property on the basis of a false Power of Attorney executed by the alleged owner of the property also in question. 11. The only allegation against the appellant was that he had purchased the property on the basis of a false Power of Attorney executed by the alleged owner of the property also in question. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considered the entire history of the civil litigations that were carried up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court also by Smt. Beena Srivastava and her husband on the allegation that Bela Rani had no title, and that the Power of Attorney in itself was a false document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to several judgements in paragraph 26 of its order, where the Court had considered the meaning of Section 420 of the Cr.P.C. as also Sections 417, 418, 419 and the meaning of fraud, deliberate deception, “dishonestly” and it came to the conclusion on the basis thereof, as also judgements rendered on the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into a weapon of harassment. It came to the conclusion, on the facts of the case pleaded before it that the FIR had not disclosed any offence insofar as appellant was concerned there was no whisper of how and in what manner the appellant was involved in any criminal offence. The charge sheet was basically vague. It observed that the High Court should have considered whether the complaint disclosed a criminal offence insofar as a nature of the allegation made against the appellant was concerned, and whether essential ingredients of the criminal offence were actually made out? Then, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the said case before it that the dispute was purely of civil nature, which was given the colour of criminal offence. 12. However, it clarified in paragraph 34 that in a given set of facts a civil or as well as the criminal offence can be made out simultaneously and, only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. 13. 12. However, it clarified in paragraph 34 that in a given set of facts a civil or as well as the criminal offence can be made out simultaneously and, only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. 13. It is clear from the consideration of facts in the case of Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. (Supra) that the Supreme Court has clarified that only because Civil proceedings or remedy are available against the particular transaction, it cannot be said that Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated if the essential ingredients and dishonesty are made out under Section 420 of the Cr.P.C. 14. Insofar as the learned counsel for the petitioners arguments regarding civil proceedings being barred by limitation having been expired and therefore, the FIR was lodged is concerned, this Court has gone through the Schedule and Article 59 of the Scheduled attached to Limitation Act relied upon, which is mentioned under part IV "Suits relating to Decree or an instrument" and it finds that the limitation of three years is only from the date of knowledge. In this case knowledge was drived by the opposite party no.4, Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem va Jadeed sometime in 2016, and the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was lodged on 23.07.2018 after the U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board sent letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate on 24.10.2016 for taking appropriate action for protecting the property of the Waqf Board. 15. No case has been made by the learned counsel for petitioner to show interference in the summoning order or the bailable warrant issued against her. 16. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected.