Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging parent's sale deed was forged and subsequent sale to them illegal. Court held civil suits are pending and noted vendor did not challenge deed validity personally. Merits not examinable under Article 226. FIR not quashed; petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; quashing of FIR denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6112 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shivram Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
The present petition has been filed seeking for quashing the first information report dated 07.01.2018 with the assertion that the allegations of the respondents for execution of the sale deed dated 13.10.1999 by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of the father of the respondent no. 3/complainant are absolutely false. The alleged sale deed dated 13.10.1999 is a forged document. The subsequent sale deed dated 03.04.2006 executed by the petitioner no. 1 in favour of his daughters i.e. the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. To press this argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court to page - '48' of the paper book, which is the copy of plaint of the civil suit namely Original Suit No. 562 of 2017 filed by the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 with the relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.10.1999.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners thus, is that the question of validity/genuineness of the sale deed dated 13.10.1999 is subject matter of pending Civil Suit. The subsequent first information report lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 3, therefore, is nothing but an effort to unnecessarily harass the petitioners, who are fighting for their rights and title in the disputed property, before the Civil Court.
Considering the above, we may note that in the Original Suit No. 562 of 2017, the petitioner no. 1 herein has joined the proforma respondent no. 3. The allegations in the said suit are that the sale deed dated 13.10.1999 was got registered by the purchaser (father of the complainant) by forged and fabricated means and no such sale deed had been executed by the petitioner no.1 herein. It is then contended that no sale consideration was paid by the vendee of the sale deed dated 13.10.1999. Pursuant to the subsequent sale deed dated 03.04.2006, the names of the vendees i.e. petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 had been mutated.
Be that as it may, considering the averments in the Original Suit No. 562 of 2017, at least this much is clear that the deed dated 13.10.1999 had been registered in the office of the SubRegistrar. The question as to whether the sale consideration had been paid by the vendee or not is subject matter of the civil suit. However, the subsequent sale deed dated 03.04.2006 without cancellation of the previous sale deed dated 13.10.1999 cannot be given due legal credence as on date.
We may further note that the vendor of the sale deed dated 13.10.1999 who is the petitioner no. 1 herein himself did not file suit for declaration of the sale deed being a void document. He has simply been arrayed as a proforma party whereas the payment of sale consideration to the vendor cannot be denied by any other person than the vendor himself.
For all the above reasons, we cannot take any exception of the averments made in the first information report. We are not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the first information report had been levelled only to put undue pressure upon the petitioners though the dispute is purely civil in nature.
Even otherwise, the merits or demerits cannot be seen within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any interference at this stage may impede the process of speedy investigation.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merit and hence, dismissed .
It is, however, made clear that the Investigating Officer shall conclude the investigation without being influenced with any of the observations made herein above.
Order Date :- 16.9.2021 gp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pending civil suit regarding forged sale deed bars filing of criminal FIR for same transaction.
Whether merits of civil dispute between family members can be interfered under Article 226 during investigation.
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of FIR lacks merit and warrants dismissal.
Shivram Singh And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Sunita Agarwal
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
