Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.68) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21906 of 2017 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avanish Mishra,Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,G.A.,Ram Kumar Pal,Vikas Rana Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Shardendu Mishra, and Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 and Sri Yogendra Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 09.06.2017 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.06.2017 and the entire proceeding of Case Crime No. 451 of 2015, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant herein is the neighbour of the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 had taken loan from the bank for purchase of auto/loader. Thereupon the opposite party no. 3 approached the applicant herein to seek financial help and she agreed to sell her house no. 222, EWS situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. Thereupon the opposite party no.3 came to the court campus at Kanpur District Court and executed an agreement to sell of the said house for the sale consideration for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and for the same an agreement was executed. Out of the said amount Rs. 1,25,000/.- was received by the opposite party no.3 from the applicant. Thereupon when the opposite party no.3 did not execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sale, a legal notice was issued by the applicant for execution of the sale deed after receipt of the balance amount. When the opposite party no.3 did not comply with the said notice, a civil suit no. 1434 of 2013 was filed by the applicant against the opposite party no.3 seeking specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the opposite party no.3. The said civil suit is still pending and the proceeding of the said civil suit are at the final stage. However, the trial of the suit has not yet concluded. 4. After filing the written statement in the said civil suit, the opposite party no.3 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 11.05.2015. The same was allowed and an FIR being Case Crime No. 451 of 2015 dated 21.07.2015 was registered against the applicant herein for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. The matter was investigated by the investigating agency and a final report was submitted stating therein the nature of the dispute between the parties is civil for which a civil suit is pending between the parties. Against the said final report, a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no.3 on 07.11.2016, upon which the direction was issued for further investigation in the light of allegations made in the protest petition. Subsequent thereto, the charge sheet was filed in the instant case against the applicant herein on 09.06.2017 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. Being aggrieved by the said charge sheet filed against the applicant, the instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 11.08.2017, interim protection was granted by this Court to the applicant. 5. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the dispute between the parties, is purely civil in nature. The agreement to sell was executed is a registered agreement to sell through the Registrar concerned, therefore, there is a presumption with regard to the validity of the said document. Thus to create a defence in the said civil suit due to the increase in valuation in the said house, the instant FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no.3, with malafide intention. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant FIR lodged by the opposite party no.3 against the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 submits that the opposite party no.3 is an illiterate lady. She asked the applicant herein who was her neighbour for financial help and she wanted to purchase a auto/loader in the name of financial help and the applicant herein had taken her to the court campus for executing the loan agreement and the said agreement was obtained by the applicant misleading the opposite party no.3 as she could not understand the nature of document, which is being executed by the applicant herein. Since she admits that she has taken loan of of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the applicant. 7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that out of the said amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs. 60,000/- has already been returned by the opposite party no.3. It is only after she received the notice from the applicant, it came to the knowledge of the opposite party no.3. The document, which was got executed was not for the loan but a document with regard to agreement to sell, which was never intended by the opposite party no.2. 8. Thus learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submits that from the allegations as made in the FIR, a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant, whereupon a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has already been taken by the learned Magistrate. In view thereof, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submits that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant categorically in the present case. 9. Learned AGA also submits that the opposite party no.3 has been misled by the applicant in the name of advancement of loan to her as she was an illiterate lady. Therefore, the allegations as made in the FIR are prima facie established from the allegations as made in the FIR and the validity of such allegations cannot be examined while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The brief facts as reflected from the record have already been noted herein above. The allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party no.3 is an illiterate lady and she was in dire financial needs. The applicant herein was her neighbour. She approached him for advancement of loan. The applicant herein agreed to advance the loan and took the opposite party no.3 to the court campus and got executed an agreement to sell in the name of the loan documents. Without understanding the nature of documents, she was misled by the applicant herein. The opposite party no.3 had signed the said agreement to sell and completed the formality regarding registration of the said document with the understanding that the said document is a document with regard to the advancement of loan by the applicant herein to the opposite party no.3 and as per the allegations, she has received a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the applicant and she has also allegedly returned a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the applicant. 11. Thus from the allegations as made in the complaint case, prima facie there is an element of cheating by the applicant and she could realize the aforesaid cheating only upon receiving of legal notice with regard to the execution of sale deed in terms of the said agreement and subsequent civil suit filed by the applicant. Thus from the allegations as made in the FIR, a prima facie case of cheating is made out against the applicant. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to test the veracity of the allegations as the same would require a detailed trial. The only thing is to be determined whether from the allegations made in the instant case and the entire material available on record a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. In the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhan (2013) 11 SCC 637, the Apex Court has observed as under: "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court." 12. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in S.N. Vijaylakshmi and others vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2025 INSC 917, the Apex Court has held as under: "42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhan (2013) 11 SCC 637, can be referred to: '12. … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.' " 13. Thus merely because a civil remedy available, the registration of the criminal case as FIR cannot be quashed, if on independent assessment of the essential ingredients of the criminal offence are found to be present in the FIR or the complaint as the case may be. 14. In the instant case, pendency of the civil suit filed by the applicant is consequent to the allegations of cheating thereby getting the agreement to sell executed in the name of advancement of loan. Since from the allegations as made in the instant case, prima facie a criminal offence is made out. 15. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, merely because civil suit was subsequently filed by the applicant after committing the cheating with the opposite party no.3, pendency of the civil suit is in consequential to the criminal proceeding initiated by the opposite party no.3 against the applicant herein. 16. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to quash the proceedings as prayed for by learned cousnel for the applicant. Accordingly, the instant application is, hereby, dismissed. 17. Any observations made in the instant order shall not affect any proceeding pending before the civil court as well as the criminal proceedings in the instant matter before the trial court and the trial court shall proceed in the matter expeditiously as the instant FIR is pending since 2017 when the charge sheet was filed, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with law. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad