2025:UHC:6812 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 01.08.2025 C482/1083/2017 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. No representation for respondent no.2 4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the cognizance/ summoning order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Dehradun, in a complaint case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, as well as the judgment and order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2016, whereby the revision preferred by the applicant was dismissed. 5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that one Smt. Premwati W/o Nand Kishore sold her land to Smt. Parwati Devi through a registered sale deed dated 17.10.1979; that, Smt. Parwati Devi executed a sale deed in favour of the present applicant on 29.05.1991; that, a supplementary sale deed was thereafter executed by Smt. Parwati Devi on 06.08.1991; that, the legal heirs of Smt. Parwati Devi executed another supplementary deed on 20.10.2003 in favour of the applicant. 6. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the wife of the applicant had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 461 of 2001, 2025:UHC:6812 which was pending adjudication; that, during the pendency of that suit, the respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the intention to exert pressure; that, initially, vide order dated 28.04.2007, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against several persons; that, subsequently, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the respondent no.2, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2016, summoning the applicant. 7. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the supplementary deeds merely corrected the boundaries and area of Khasra No. 689 as per actual possession and there was no change in Khasra No. 659; that, the property of respondent no.2 (Khasra No. 658) had already been sold and recorded in the revenue records on 15.02.2008; hence, he suffered no loss or prejudice; that, no civil suit has ever been filed by respondent no.2 for cancellation of the supplementary/ corrigendum deeds. 8. Learned State counsel would submit that the learned trial court, after considering the material on record, rightly issued summons under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 & 468 IPC; that, the learned revisional court, on proper appreciation of the evidence and law, has affirmed the order dated 26.07.2016, and no interference is warranted. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is admitted that respondent no.2 has not filed any case to cancel the supplementary/corrigendum sale deeds made in favour of the applicant, therefore, without cancellation by a Civil or Revenue Court, the exact boundaries, measurements, and ownership cannot be decided in criminal proceedings. This 2025:UHC:6812 dispute is mainly about boundaries, measurements, and alleged changes in sale deeds—issues that are purely civil in nature and must be decided in a proper civil suit. 11. The respondent no.2 has not taken such civil remedies, and his earlier Civil Suit No. 603 of 2003 was dismissed. This shows the criminal case is an afterthought to pressure the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where the allegations in a criminal complaint, even if taken at face value, disclose a civil dispute without the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences, the continuation of such proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the court. 12. In view of the above, the C-482 application is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2016 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Dehradun under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. as well as the judgment and order dated 31.07.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge 5th Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2016 is herby quashed. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.08.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6812