Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62129 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8493 of 2016 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Mangal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Mani Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present, even in the revised reading of cause list. 3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 6513 of 2013 (Rajesh Anand vs. Smt. Pratibha Sachan & others), under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar. 4. As per prosecution story, one Barkat Ram Anand died on 17.10.2010 leaving behind 19 others legal heirs. Before his death, he had executed a will deed in favour of Ramendra Singh Sachan and Pratibha Sachan on 23.02.2010 and on the basis of said will deed Ramendra Singh Sachan and Pratibha Sachan have taken possession of the property in question and thereafter, 19 legal heirs separately entered into an agreement to sell his property in favour Ramendra Singh Sachan and Pratibha Sachan on 17.12.2012 and received consideration amount of Rs. 25 lacks. He further submitted that one of the legal heirs, being dissatisfied with the same, had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the will deed and agreement to sell was executed fraudulently. On that basis the said application was treated as a complaint case and summons were issued on 17.12.2014, which has been assailed by the applicant by means of the instant application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute relating to will deed was finally adjudicated by the civil court on 09.07.2019 and decreed in favour of Ramendra Singh Sachan and Pratibha Sachan. He further submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which has been given criminal colour by opposite party no. 2 by filing the complaint case. He next submitted that the instant criminal proceedings has been initiated just to put undue pressure upon the applicant. He further submitted that the summoning order was passed without application of mind and the same is not speaking order. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in (Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) 2025 INCS 512. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement reads as under :- "In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh,15 this Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M. Johny and Others, which held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even in the complaint it has been stated by complainant that there is a civil dispute between the parties. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgements has stated that civil dispute cannot be given criminal colour and the same should be rejected. 7. Evidently, prima facie, it appears that there is civil dispute between the parties wherein on the basis of a will deed, the entire property was given to the applicant. The other co-sharer has no objection to the same. It is one of the co-sharer, who had objection, instead of contesting the matter in the civil suit before competent civil court, had initiated the criminal proceedings, which is pure abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case initiated against the applicant is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad