2025:UHC:2647 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C-482 No. 1747 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicants have filed the present criminal miscellaneous application seeking the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash the charge sheet dt. 18.03.2004 (Annexure No.5 to the accompanying affidavit), cognizance order dt. 15.5.2004 (Annexure No.6 to the accompanying affidavit), passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun and the proceeding of criminal case no. 4640 of 2013 (old no.481 of 2004) State Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and others under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C., pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun; and/or pass any other and further orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. It is, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of criminal case no.4640 of 2013 (old no.481 of 2004) State Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and others under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C., pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, during pendency of the criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court, so that the justice be done with the applicants.” 4. An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2, wherein, he has alleged that the applicant no. 1 by executing a forged power of attorney of respondent no. 2 have executed a sale deed dated 25.07.2001 in favour of applicant no. 2, which is registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Dehradun in Book no. 1, Volume 2025:UHC:2647 963 at page 97 at serial number 4036. It is further alleged in the FIR that applicant nos. 1 and 2 have performed this act of forgery in connivance with Devraj Tiwari, Nathiram Maurya and Anil Ghai. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that respondent no. 2 have subsequently filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 96 of 2004 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun against the applicants as well as other co-accused with the following prayers:- “(A) A decree may very kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 25-07-2001 and which is said to be registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun, in book no. 1, volume 963, at page 97, at's1.no. 4036 and registered on 25-07-2001 and the subsequent and consequent sale deed dated 28th September 2001 executed in favour of the defendant no. 7 which is registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun, in book no. 1, volume 963, page 119, at sl.no. 5269 and registered on 28-09-2001 and the said sale deeds be adjudged to be illegal, fabricated inoperative and sham piece of documents and not binding upon the plaintiff. and intimation thereof may kindly be sent to the Sub Registrar, Dehradun. (B) A decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff & against the defendants restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, representatives, assigns etc. from in any way encroaching upon the property in suit and raising any construction thereon and also from transferring or creating any third party rights over the property in suit. (C) Full cost of the suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.” 7. He has further submitted that applicants, in their written statement, have specifically denied the allegations made in the plaint and further filed an 2025:UHC:2647 application, wherein, they have submitted that signature of respondent no. 2 in the alleged power of attorney as well as in the civil suit be sent to hand-writing expert. After moving of this application, the plaintiff did not pursue the suit and the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 31.10.2011. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants have produced before this Court the questionnaire, which are taken on record. Perusal of the questionnaire reveals that after dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution on 31.10.2011, no restoration application has been filed and the suit stood dismissed. He has thus contended that the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, are purely of civil nature and which could have been determined after considering documentary evidence. 9. Since, the respondent no. 2, who have filed a suit for cancellation of the alleged sale deed, have himself chosen not to pursue the suit filed by him, therefore, in view of the fact that FIR was based on similar set of facts as alleged in the civil suit and since the civil suit was dismissed in the year 2011 and have not been restored by respondent no. 2 and have thus attained finality; the entire version of the FIR filed by respondent no. 2 has become improbable. Thus, the very chances of the conviction become oblique and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. It is nothing, but, the misuse of the process of law. The Court cannot be used for any oblique purpose or for the purpose of twisting the arm to settle their own civil 2025:UHC:2647 dispute. Moreover, the respondent no. 2- complainant has not come forward to contest the present petition despite service. Accordingly, the present petition has gone uncontested on his behalf. 10. In view of the above submission, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned charge-sheet, summoning/ cognizance order dated 15.05.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun and also the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4640 of 2013 (old no.481 of 2004) State Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and others under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C., pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned charge- sheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 15.05.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4640 of 2013 (old no.481 of 2004) State Vs. Deo Raj Tiwari and others under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) I.P.C., pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Alok Mahra J.) 08.04.2025 Ujjwal UJJWAL UPADHA YAY Digitally signed by UJJWAL UPADHAYAY DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=9393551a90e6503cb676399c964af2fe1d0 b9d6096e7e3dd604ed5500c4c6251, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=738FE7CE353E3BD86B04161EACEDD A1338FDDE923658FFC1C18416E79CCA8145, cn=UJJWAL UPADHAYAY Date: 2025.04.08 17:36:22 +05'30'