The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to quash charge sheets once charges have been framed and trial proceedings have advanced, even where the summoning order is non-speaking. The judgment underscores the procedural limits of inherent powers and the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on competing claims of ownership over five shops located at Orchi Chauraha, Behta, District Badaun. The applicants - Jwala Prasad, Mahandi Hasan, Bhure Khan, and Bhuri Begum - claim to have purchased the property through an unregistered sale deed executed by Smt. Dayawati on 24.02.2005. They assert they have been in continuous possession since 1990 and that the sale deed could not be registered due to the dilatory conduct of Smt. Dayawati. The opposite parties - Smt. Lalit Kumari (Opposite Party No.2) and Smt. Vipin Kumar (Opposite Party No.3) - claim title through a registered sale deed from Rakesh Kumar, who in turn acquired the property from Smt. Dayawati via a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2007.
Key Facts
- Smt. Dayawati and her husband Rajendra Kumar purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 27.08.1987 from Abdul Hussain and Ali Sher.
- The names of Smt. Dayawati and Rajendra Kumar were mutated in revenue records after purchase.
- After Rajendra Kumar’s death, Smt. Dayawati became the absolute owner.
- On 24.08.2007, Smt. Dayawati executed a registered sale deed in favor of Rakesh Kumar for five shops. This deed remains unchallenged.
- Rakesh Kumar sold 1/4th share to Shubhash Chandra via a registered sale deed dated 20.05.2013, which has not been challenged.
- The applicants claim ownership through an unregistered sale deed dated 24.02.2005, allegedly executed by Smt. Dayawati.
- Forensic Sciences Laboratory Report confirmed that the signature of Smt. Dayawati on the unregistered deed was forged.
- Smt. Dayawati, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., denied executing the unregistered deed and affirmed the sale to Rakesh Kumar.
- Civil suits were filed by both sides: Rakesh Kumar filed four suits for possession (O.S. Nos. 98 - 101/2010), which were decreed on 21.03.2016. Restoration applications filed by applicants were allowed on 23.08.2017 but later set aside by the District Judge on 17.02.2018.
- Applicant Bhure Khan entered into a compromise in Execution Case No.4 of 2016 and handed over possession of his shop to Rakesh Kumar on 14.11.2018.
- FIRs No.174/2015 and 174A/2015 were lodged on 29.12.2015 under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 506 IPC, alleging cheating and forgery.
- Charge sheets No.123/2015 and No.124/2015 were filed on 29.12.2015.
- The trial court framed charges on 15.01.2016. The statement of P.W.-1 was recorded.
Procedural History
- 24.02.2005: Alleged unregistered sale deed executed by Smt. Dayawati in favor of applicants.
- 27.08.1987: Registered sale deed by original owners to Smt. Dayawati and Rajendra Kumar.
- 24.08.2007: Registered sale deed by Smt. Dayawati to Rakesh Kumar.
- 14.03.2013: Rakesh Kumar sold 1/4th share to Lalit Kumari.
- 20.05.2013: Registered sale deed by Rakesh Kumar to Shubhash Chandra (unchallenged).
- 29.05.2015: Applicants filed civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.03.2013.
- 29.12.2015: FIRs No.174/2015 and 174A/2015 lodged; charge sheets No.123/2015 and No.124/2015 filed.
- 01.04.2016: High Court dismissed initial Section 482 application without reasoning.
- 17.08.2016: Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directing fresh consideration with reasons.
- 15.01.2016: Charges framed by trial court.
- 2016 - 2026: Section 482 application pending before High Court.
- 12.05.2026: Present judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicants
- Claimed lawful possession since 1990.
- Argued that the unregistered sale deed was genuine and registration was obstructed by Smt. Dayawati.
- Contended that the FIRs and charge sheets were malicious, filed to harass them after civil suits were initiated.
- Asserted that the summoning order was non-speaking and violated Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Lalankumar Singh.
- Relied on Bhajan Lal to argue that no offence was made out.
For the Respondents
- Asserted that Smt. Dayawati was the absolute owner and had validly sold the property to Rakesh Kumar via registered deed.
- Argued that the unregistered deed was forged, as confirmed by forensic report and Smt. Dayawati’s sworn statement.
- Stated that the applicants were not illegal occupants but were being prosecuted for cheating and forgery.
- Emphasized that the applicants had not challenged the summoning order or the order framing charges.
- Highlighted that P.W.-1’s statement had been recorded and trial was underway.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of charge sheets No.123/2015 and No.124/2015, and all consequential proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 506 IPC.
The Legal Issue
Can a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be maintained to quash a charge sheet after charges have been framed and the trial has commenced, when the applicant has not challenged the summoning order or the order framing charges?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants relied on Bhajan Lal to argue that the proceedings were malicious and based on a forged document. They contended that the summoning order was non-speaking, violating the principles laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra. They argued that since the charge sheet was the first formal document initiating prosecution, it remained challengeable under Section 482 CrPC even after framing of charges, citing Pannalal Sah v. Mukesh Singh. They further asserted that the civil suits indicated a genuine property dispute, and criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the applicants had not challenged the summoning order or the order framing charges, which are statutory remedies under Sections 204 and 239 CrPC. Once charges were framed and evidence recorded, the High Court could not revisit the sufficiency of the investigation material under Section 482. The State emphasized that the forensic report and Smt. Dayawati’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. established a prima facie case of forgery and cheating. The applicants’ failure to seek amendment or challenge judicial orders rendered their petition infructuous.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the settled principle from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. The Court noted that the applicants’ case did not fall within any of the seven categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal where quashing is permissible.
"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint."
The Court held that the applicants’ reliance on Pepsi Foods and Lalankumar Singh was misplaced. While those cases established that summoning orders must be speaking and reflect judicial application of mind, the applicants had not filed any petition under Section 482 to challenge the summoning order itself. The order framing charges, which is a judicial determination of prima facie guilt, had also not been challenged.
The Court emphasized that once charges are framed and evidence is recorded, the trial court becomes the appropriate forum to test the veracity of allegations. The High Court cannot, under Section 482, act as an appellate authority over the trial court’s findings. The Court observed:
"Once a statutory right to seek discharge was available to the applicants and they either chose not to exercise the said right or were unsuccessful in their challenge and thereafter the trial Court framed charges and the trial is in progress, this Court would not then exercise its discretionary power to quash the proceedings solely on the basis of the material collected in the police investigation."
The Court further rejected the argument that the petition remained maintainable merely because it challenged the charge sheet. It held that the charge sheet is not an independent judicial order but a prosecutorial document. The real judicial orders - summoning and framing of charges - were unchallenged. The applicants’ delay of nearly a decade in seeking relief, coupled with their failure to avail statutory remedies, barred them from invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Court also noted that the unregistered sale deed was not only unchallenged in civil court but was also declared forged by forensic evidence and denied under oath by the purported executant. This established a prima facie case of forgery and cheating under Sections 468 and 420 IPC.
The Verdict
The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed. The charge sheets No.123/2015 and No.124/2015 shall not be quashed. The trial shall proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Orders Must Be Challenged Statutorily Before Invoking Section 482
- Practitioners must challenge summoning orders and orders framing charges under Section 482 or through revision before the High Court under Section 397 CrPC.
- Failure to challenge these judicial orders renders subsequent Section 482 petitions on the same grounds infructuous.
- The High Court will not entertain collateral attacks on the sufficiency of evidence after charges are framed.
Prima Facie Case Based on Forensic Evidence Is Sufficient to Sustain Prosecution
- A forensic report confirming forgery, coupled with a denial by the purported executant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., constitutes sufficient material to establish a prima facie case under Sections 468 and 420 IPC.
- Civil disputes do not automatically bar criminal proceedings where elements of cheating or forgery are evident.
- The existence of parallel civil litigation does not render criminal prosecution mala fide.
Delay and Inaction Bar Extraordinary Relief
- Section 482 petitions pending for over a decade without seeking amendment or challenging judicial orders will be dismissed on grounds of laches.
- Courts will not permit litigants to bypass statutory remedies by waiting until trial is underway to seek quashing.
- The doctrine of election of remedies applies: once a party chooses not to challenge a judicial order, they cannot later use Section 482 to circumvent that choice.
