HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9076 of 2020 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Naveen Sinha assisted by Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 968 of 2020 (State v. Smt. Sunaina Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 417, 506, 465, 120 - B IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 17.01.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicants and other accused persons by indulging into criminal conspiracy and forgery got prepared deeds of transfer by which the piece of land as alleged to have been earmarked as park and also piece of land of pathway got transferred in favour of Virendra Pratap Singh, applicant no. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that plot no. 300 measuring area 1.03 Acres, situated at Mauja Shivpur, District Varanasi originally belonged to family member of applicants who were co-holder thereon. It is submitted that pursuant to the agreement executed in the year 1982 by uncle of applicant nos. 1 to 3. The said land was divided in several residential plots and 16 plots were carved out and the same were sold in the year of 1983. It is further contended that small piece of land remained unsold due to zig-zag shape and the same is continue to remain in the holding of co- sharers. He further submitted that all the 16 plots were sold out and the remaining land has been earmarked as park. He further submitted that a family settlement executed regarding the remaining piece of land that was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kacker, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Gajendr Pratap Alias Surendra Pratap And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) left out from the sale transactions. The remaining land is in the share of applicant no. 1 and 2 who specifically transferred part of said land through the registered sale deed dated 05.05.2018 in favour of Trust namely Triveni Singh Memorial Trust through its trustee (applicant no. 4). It is further argued that applicants have not transferred any portion of 30 wide pathway for use of plot holder. The present dispute only relates to the allegation that applicants have encroached open said pathway. It is further submitted that a civil dispute respect to the use of pathway and possession of land are already pending between the parties before the competent civil court. Learned counsel submits that the applicants thus executed the transfer deed of the said property claimed by them, thus, the offences punishable under Section 467, 468 IPC prima facie are not made out. It is further submitted that a criminal proceedings is to be initiated only to give a criminal colour of civil dispute. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer for quashing the proceeding and submitted that the allegation in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizance offence and, therefore, the proceeding could not be interfered at this stage. 6. From perusal of records, it appears that the dispute between the parties initially relates to encroachment over the piece of land which claimed by informant to be a park and pathway for the plot holders. From the perusal of the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses namely Rajesh Verma, it transpires that civil proceedings between the parties, concerning the same subject matter, are already pending before the competent court. The existence of such civil proceedings further fortifies the conclusion that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. This Court further finds that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of offence of forgery so as to justify continuation of criminal proceedings. 7. Forgery is sine-qua-non of offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Preparation of false document or false electronic record or part thereof is condition precedent for offence of forgery. Making of false document is defined under section 464 IPC. The said section 464 demonstrates that a person is said to have made false document if; (a) he executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (b) he altered and tempered a document; or (c) he obtained a document by practicing deception or from a person not in A482 No. 9076 of 2020 2 control of his faculties. The basic ingredients of forgery are: (1) the making of a false document or part of it and (2) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the section, viz, (a) to cause damage or infringe to (i) the public, or (ii) any person; or (b) to support any claim or title; or (c) to cause any person to part with property, or (d) to cause any person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. 8. 8. The core issue, therefore, pertains to determination of civil rights, namely title, possession, and easementary rights, which can only be effectively adjudicated upon by a competent civil court after appreciation of evidence. It is well settled that such disputed questions of fact, particularly relating to land and easementary rights, do not ordinarily fall within the ambit of criminal jurisdiction. It is also a settled principle of law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. Where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or to exert pressure in a civil dispute, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings have been initiated to give a colour of criminality to what is essentially a civil dispute relating to land and alleged right of user. Permitting such proceedings to continue would result in miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court. 9. In the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] the Apex Court has observed as under: "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 10. In the case of the Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Apex Court ha held as under: "16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a A482 No. 9076 of 2020 3 document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted." 11. Considering the nature of the dispute and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted cases, this Court is of the view, the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be allowed. 12. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 968 of 2020 (State v. Smt. Sunaina Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 417, 506, 465, 120 - B IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 17.01.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, is hereby quashed. March 13, 2026 v.k. updh. A482 No. 9076 of 2020 4 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad