Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20704-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2680 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abdul Faruq Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Dilip Singh Yadav holding brief of Shri Bupendra Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A-I for the State- respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 07.12.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 954 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for cancellation of sale deed a civil suit is already pending before the court below. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature, which is being given colour of criminal case. 4. Per contra, learned AGA pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows the age of the petitioner to be 44 years whereas the first information report version indicates that the petitioner was not known to reside at the given place for the past 70 years, which would prima facie indicates that the petitioner would be of 135 years of age which would be an improbability. The First information report version also indicates the same. It is submitted that it would be a clear case of impersonation. It is further submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit by itself is not sufficient to quash the proceedings. 5. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the judgement of Tuphail Ahmad and Others vs. State of U.P. And Others reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 209, paragraphs 13 is quoted as under: "13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not?." 6. This Court has again considered this issue in our judgement in Hussain Zaidi @ Guddu vs State of U.P. and others; 2024(8) ADJ 800 (DB). The relevant paragraph 16 is being quoted as under: " 16. From the above analysis, it is explicit that settled position of law is that the complaint/FIR disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture but if the dispute is predominantly civil in nature then merely because FIR/complaint attracts ingredients of any criminal offence will not resist the court from quashing the criminal proceeding but in those cases where there are specific allegations of committing forgery and allegations in the FIR/complaint are not predominantly civil in nature but criminal in nature, then there is no bar to continue the criminal proceeding despite the fact that civil proceeding is pending between the parties." 7. In view of above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs State of Uttarakhand & Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626, Usha Chakrabotrty vs State of West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. & another vs. State of Kerala reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 and State of Haryana and others vs Bhajan Lal and others; 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Tuphail Ahmad and others vs State of U.P. and others, 2023(12)ADJ 209 and Hussain Zaidi Guddu vs State of U.P. and others; 2024(8) ADJ 800(DB) and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged in the first information report, we find that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a civil dispute is pending and no criminality is attached in the act, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Nitendra Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad