Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Property Dispute: Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 48

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 48

Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Can a criminal complaint for fraud and forgery be validly pursued when a civil suit concerning the same property dispute is already pending? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used to exert pressure when civil remedies are available. In this case, the court quashed criminal proceedings, finding them to be an abuse of process, as the core dispute was already under consideration in a civil court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around plot No. 102 (later renumbered as 102/2), located in Yahiyapur, Uttar Pradesh. The original owner of the plot was Faheem Ali Khan, the father of the 2nd respondent. The appellant, Sardar Ali Khan, claims to have purchased the plot through a sale deed dated 29th December, 1993, which was registered on 5th January, 1994. Faheem Ali Khan passed away on 3rd December, 1997, and the 2nd respondent is one of his heirs. Following Faheem Ali Khan’s death, the 2nd respondent obtained a mutation of the property in his name on 16th November, 1998.

The 2nd respondent filed Original Suit No. 160 of 2008, seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant, restraining him from interfering with the property. Additionally, the 2nd respondent sought cancellation of the sale deed dated 29th December, 1993, alleging it was fraudulently obtained. The appellant also filed a suit, Original Suit No. 474 of 2008, seeking a permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent, preventing him from demolishing constructions on the plot. Both suits were clubbed, and an order to maintain the status quo was passed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the suits filed by both parties were clubbed, and a common order to maintain the status quo was passed. Appeals were filed against this interim order. The Additional District Judge allowed the appellant’s application for an injunction and dismissed the 2nd respondent’s application. These orders were further challenged in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions, which are pending before the High Court. The appellant’s application for discharge from the criminal proceedings was rejected. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings, which was also dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Legal Framework

The criminal complaint against the appellant was filed under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections deal with:

• Section 418, IPC: Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.
• Section 419, IPC: Punishment for cheating by personation.
• Section 420, IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 467, IPC: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• Section 468, IPC: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 471, IPC: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that he had a valid sale deed registered in 1994, and the 2nd respondent’s father was aware of the transaction.
• The appellant contended that the 2nd respondent was also a witness to the sale deed.
• The appellant submitted that the civil suit was filed in 2008, and the criminal complaint was filed in 2012, which was a delay and an attempt to harass him.
• The appellant argued that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, as the dispute was essentially civil in nature and already pending before a civil court.

2nd Respondent’s Submissions:

• The 2nd respondent contended that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently by the appellant and his brother by taking advantage of their acquaintance with the 2nd respondent’s father.
• The 2nd respondent argued that the criminal complaint was not barred by limitation and the appellant committed offenses under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.
• The 2nd respondent submitted that the criminal proceedings should continue independently of the civil suit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent were maintainable given that a civil suit concerning the same property dispute was already pending.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections relate to cheating, impersonation, forgery, and using forged documents.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash the criminal proceedings, noting that they were an abuse of process given the pending civil suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the core dispute was civil in nature and was already being adjudicated by a civil court. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used to exert pressure or improve a party’s case when a civil remedy is available. The delay in filing the criminal complaint after the civil suit was also a significant factor. The Court also considered the age of the appellant, who was stated to be about 87 years old, and that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.

The Court reasoned that “When the very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.” The Court further stated that “allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the process.” The Court also noted that “In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving his case.”

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, especially when a civil remedy is available.
• Delay in filing a criminal complaint after initiating a civil suit can be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings.
• Courts should be vigilant against the abuse of process and should not allow criminal proceedings to be used as a tool for harassment or to exert pressure.
• The observations and findings recorded in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal arising out of application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• It is open for the civil court to decide the various issues in the pending suits on their own merits, uninfluenced by this order.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that the observations and findings recorded in the judgment were only for the purpose of disposing of the appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The civil court was directed to decide the pending suits on their own merits, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle civil disputes, especially when a civil remedy is available. The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing criminal proceedings to continue in such cases would be an abuse of the process of law. This judgment reinforces the principle that civil disputes should be resolved through civil courts, and criminal proceedings should not be used to exert pressure or harass the parties involved. There is no change in the previous position of law, this judgement reinforces the settled position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Sardar Ali Khan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellant, finding them to be an abuse of process. The Court held that the core dispute was civil in nature and was already pending before a civil court. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used to exert pressure when civil remedies are available. This judgment reinforces the principle that civil disputes should be resolved through civil courts.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 418, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 419, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 467, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Property Law
  • Property Dispute
  • Sale Deed
• Abuse of Process
• Civil Dispute
• Criminal Proceedings
• Quashing of Proceedings

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for property disputes?

A: This judgment clarifies that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle property disputes that are essentially civil in nature. If a civil suit is already pending, a criminal complaint on the same issue may be considered an abuse of process.

Q: Can I file a criminal complaint if I have a property dispute?

A: While you can file a criminal complaint, the court will consider whether the dispute is primarily civil in nature. If a civil suit is already pending on the same issue, the criminal complaint may be quashed.

Q: What is an abuse of process?

A: An abuse of process is when legal proceedings are used for an improper purpose, such as harassment or exerting pressure, rather than for their intended purpose. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the criminal complaint was an abuse of process because a civil suit was already pending on the same issue.

Q: What should I do if I have a property dispute?

A: If you have a property dispute, it is best to seek legal advice and consider filing a civil suit. Avoid using criminal proceedings as a first resort, especially if the dispute is primarily civil in nature.