HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43337 of 2024 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 449 of 2019 (State vs. Shailendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420 IPC, P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur as well as summoning order dated 16.02.2019, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Gorakhpur. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 claims to have purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed in the year 1991. Thereafter, the said property was mortgaged with a bank for obtaining a loan, in which the complainant’s brother stood as guarantor. It is further alleged that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 executed a registered sale deed in the year 1998 in respect of half of the said property in favour of his brother, namely Shailendra. Subsequently, Shailendra is stated to have sold the said property by way of a sale deed in favour of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anup Kumar Srivastava, Anushriya Tripathi, Ashok Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Arvind Prabodh Dubey, G.A. Subhash Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) wife of Subhash Yadav, who obtained a loan of Rs. 35 lakhs on the strength of the said property. The allegation against the applicant, in brief, is that he, along with other persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy and got the disputed property purchased in the name of his wife. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser and that the property in dispute was validly purchased by Shailendra from his brother, Satyendra, through a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that a civil suit is pending between Shailendra and Satyendra, who is the brother of the person from whom the applicant ultimately purchased the property. It is also contended that the said civil suit was instituted on 30.04.2018, after an inordinate delay of about 20 years from the alleged execution of the sale deed dated 23.01.1998. Learned counsel further submits that the present criminal proceedings have been initiated with the ulterior motive to harass the applicant. It is further argued that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC are not prima facie made out in the present case. The applicant has denied execution of any sale deed dated 01.09.1998 and has asserted that the said document is false, forged, and fabricated. It is also submitted that at the relevant time, the original title documents were already deposited with the bank, rendering the alleged transaction doubtful. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex court passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 2682 of 2020 and in SLP(Crl.) No. 10251 of 2019. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted that the complainant had never sold the property in question to his brother, Shailendra. It is further submitted that the original sale deed of the said property had been mortgaged with the A482 No. 43337 of 2024 2 bank for obtaining a loan and the same was returned to the complainant only in the year 2021, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 9359 of 2018. Learned counsel has contended that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not possible for the complainant to have executed any sale deed in respect of the said property. It is further submitted that the applicant, being fully aware of the aforesaid circumstances, deliberately proceeded to purchase the property with the intention of obtaining a loan on its basis. It is lastly submitted that, on a perusal of the FIR, prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences are clearly made out against the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR was lodged against the applicant and other persons namely, Sheela Yadav, Shailendra Yadav, Subhash Yadav and Anit Tiwari for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC and the charge sheet was submitted against Shailendra and Subhash Yadav for the offences punishable under section 419 and 420 of IPC. On the perusal of records, it appears that dispute between the parties primarily relates to title and validity of the sale deeds in respect of the property in question. It is not in dispute that a civil suit is already pending between the parties concerning the same property. 8. The contention of the applicant is that he is a bona fide purchaser and that the chain of title originates from a registered sale deed executed in the year 1998, whereas the case of the complainant is that no such sale deed was ever executed and the property remained mortgaged with the bank during the relevant period. 9. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the scope of A482 No. 43337 of 2024 3 interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide. 10. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR disclose that the applicant, in connivance with other accused persons, is alleged to have participated in a transaction involving disputed property, which is alleged to be based on forged and fabricated documents, with the intention to obtain wrongful gain by securing a loan. Whether the sale deed in question is genuine or forged, whether the complainant had in fact executed any such document, and whether the applicant had knowledge of the alleged fraud, are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and require evidence to be led before the trial court. 11. The mere pendency of a civil dispute between the parties does not ipso facto bar criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations in the FIR disclose ingredients of criminal offences. It is settled law that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously if the allegations disclose both civil liability as well as criminal culpability. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie, disclose commission of cognizable offences and the case does not fall within the categories recognized for quashing of proceedings. 13. Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed. February 24, 2026 v.k. updh. A482 No. 43337 of 2024 4 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad