When complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 2nd February 2020 

Sardar Ali Khan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary of Home Dept. and Anr. (Criminal Appeal of 161 of 2020)

Facts of the case: 

1. 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 2^nd 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. 
2. 2^nd Respondent filed original suit no. 160 of 2008 before Judicial Magistrate, Kayamganj, Farrukhabad district claiming (1) permanent injunction against the defendant with directions. (2)  Decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 29/12/1993. (3)  defendant should pay the expenses (4) any other relief which court may deem fit. 
3. 2^nd respondent filed this original suit no. 160 of 2008 for cancellation of sale deed alleging that the sale deed was got executed by appellant and his brother, by making use of acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner. 2^nd respondent has filed a case against 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 filed an application under sec. 482 of CRPC before High Court for quashing the above mentioned proceedings and summoning order issued by Magistrate; but High Court rejected the same. 

Judgment:

1. 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.   
2. 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 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. 
3. 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 are 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. 
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 12th 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 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.