Allahabad High Court
Syed Masood Ahmad And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 28 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124465 Reserved Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26132 of 2018 Applicant :- Syed Masood Ahmad And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, no one appeared to press the application, as such the opposite party no.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.02.2024.
3. This application has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 1364/16 (Haidar Ali Vs. Syed Masood Ahmad and others) u/s 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, pending before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M., Amroha, as well as, impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha, in Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2017 (Syed Masood Ahmad and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and summoning order dated the impugned 04.03.2017 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M., Amroha in Complaint No.1364 of 2016 (Haidar Ali vs. Syed Masood Ahmad and others).
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Applicant no.1 Syed Masood Ahmad is having a degree of Ph.D. in Geochemistry, has been living along with his family (including Applicant no.2) in Hyderabad since 1974. Applicant no.1 served as a Scientist in the National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), Hyderabad, a National Laboratory under the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) belonging to the Department Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR) of the Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India and retired from NGRI in 2012 as a Chief Scientist. Applicant no.1 has been appointed as Professor in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. The Applicant no.2 is a scientist in his field who was awarded the National Geoscience Award by the Government of India in 2009. The Applicant no.2 is simple house wife and has also been living in Hyderabad after her marriage with Applicant no.1 in 1983 and she is not involved in any property matters.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that applicant no.3 also having degree of Ph.D. in Chemistry, lived in Goa from 1974 to 2016. During this period he served as a Scientist in the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), Goa, another National Laboratory belonging to the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) under the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR) of the Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India. Applicant no.3 retired as the Director of NIO in August, 2016. After his superannuation from NIO in 2016, Applicant no.3 served as a Consultant to the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research until the Government of India re-employed him at the CSIR Headquarters as a distinguished Scientist in the scale of a Special Secretary.
6. It is submitted that applicants have their ancestral house in Mandi Chob, Amroha and they are owner and in full possession of aforesaid house. The adjacent house (to its east) was once owned by late Syed Mohammad Akhtar prior to the partition of country. The latter house was undivided. Syed Mohammad Akhtar and his family migrated to Pakistan after partition. It is submitted that opposite party no.2 claims that Syed Mohammad was his Grandfather.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that from the perusal of family tree, it is clear that both Mohammad Akhtar and his son Mohammad Naqi, the alleged grandfather and father of opposite party no.2 migrated and died in Pakistan.
8. It is further submitted that after his migration to Pakistan, Mohammad Akhtar's undivided house was acquired by Custodian of evacuee property and in 1959 a sale deed was executed for this house in the name of President of India to Sardar Buddh Singh and later-on Sardar Buddh Singh sold the aforesaid house to Syed Mohammad Ahmad (the grandfather of applicants no.1 and 3) in 1960 and later on Syed Mohd. Ahmad sold this property to Shri Usman Khan retaining only a small area of 73 square yards. Syed Mohammad Akhtar's ancestral house slightly expended with this small area, has always been and continuous to be in full possession and occupation of Syed Mohd. Ahmad descendant (Applicants no.1 and 3). The other one owned by Sayed Mohammad Akhtar, is now in possession of Usman Khan's descendants. Therefore, there are two adjacent houses in the area and one house belonging and occupied by the descendents of Syed Mohd. Ahmad and other by the descendant of Usman Khan. There is no other house in the area that the opposite party no.2 claims to possess.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that suddenly on 14.01.2015 the opposite party 2 executed a sale deed of 50 square yard from the part of house, which he falsely claimed to be owned by his ancestors and possessed by him.
10. It is submitted that aggrieved by the claim of opposite party no.2, the Applicant no.1 visited Amroha and preferred Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amroha, which was registered as Original Suit No. 58 of 2015 (Syed Masood Ahmad Vs. Haidar Ali and others) on 02.02.2015 for cancellation of aforesaid sale deed and permanent injunction. In the said original suit, the opposite party no.2 has also filed his written statement.
11. It is submitted that in the aforesaid civil suit an Amin Commission was appointed by the court below, who has submitted its report dated 27.02.2015 and by the perusal of the aforesaid Amin report, it is clear that the opposite party no.2 is not in possession of the house belonging to Mohd. Ahmad's descendant including the applicants no.1 and 3.
12. Further, on 03.02.2015 the Applicant no.1 also lodged an FIR against the opposite party no.2 and six other persons, which was registered as Case Crime No.35 of 2015.
13. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that after knowing that the Applicant no.1 was present in Amroha, the miscreants also assumed that the Applicants no.2 and 3 would also be present in Amroha on 03.02.2015, the day an FIR was lodged, the miscreants represented by the opposite party no.2 in retaliation and for saving their skin, moved a false and completely fabricated application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha. The court below called report from the police, who submitted its report dated 27.05.2015.
14. It is submitted that the aforesaid application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no.2 by falsely stating therein that he is the owner and in possession of house situated at Mohalla Mandi Chob, Amroha, and a sale deed was executed in 1946 in the name of his mother and he has executed a sale deed of 50 sq. yard on 14.01.2015 in favour of Javed and others and rest arazi is in the name of opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that Applicants no. 1-3, who are allegedly cheater and land grabber and wants to grab the property of the opposite party no.2 and that they have made forged and fabricated documents of the house. Moreover it is alleged that on 03.02.2015 at 2 PM the applicants entered in his house and abused and beaten with kicks and fists to the opposite party no.2.
15. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated 21.05.2015 the aforesaid case has been converted into a Complaint Case No.1364 of 2016 (Haidar Ali vs. Syed Masood Ahmad and others) and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to record the statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of Haidar Ali-opposite party no.2 was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, statements of Nayab Haidar and Shahnaz Fatma were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
16. It is submitted that vide order dated 04.03.2017, the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M. Amroha summoned the applicants for facing trial under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC on the basis of statements of opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of Nayab Haidar and Shahnaz Fatma under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, the applicants moved criminal revision before District & Sessions Judge, Amroha, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2017 (Syed Masood Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and another) but the aforesaid revision was treated only for Applicants no.1 and 2 as at the time of filing of aforesaid criminal revision, the Applicant no.3 was out of India and as he was serving in Kuwait, therefore, the aforesaid revision was treated only for applicant nos.1 and 2.
17. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that when the opposite party no.2 executed the sale-deed dated 14.01.2015 of 50 square yard from the part of the house, then aggrieved by the intention of the opposite party no.2, the applicant no.1 visited to Amroha and preferred Civil Suit before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amroha for cancellation of sale-deed and also for injunction and the said suit has been decreed in favour of Applicants and the sale-deed dated 14.01.2015 has been cancelled vide judgment dated 21.09.2022.
18. It is to be seen that the civil court by judgment dated 21.09.2022 has decreed the Civil Suit No.58 of 2015 and the sale-deed dated 14.01.2015 has been cancelled and permanent injunction has been issued against opposite party no.2.
19. The relevant finding in the aforesaid judgment which pertains to the property in dispute is quoted herein below:
" पत्रावली पर सरदार बुद्ध सिंह के हक में हुये बैनामा दिनांक 08.01.1959 से यह स्पष्ट है कि सरदार बुद्ध सिंह ने जो सम्पत्ति कस्टोडियन से खरीदी थी, उसके पश्चिम में मौ० सैय्यद अहमद का मकान था। बुद्ध सिंह द्वारा जो सम्पत्ति क्रय की गयी थी, वह निष्क्रान्त सम्पत्ति थी। धारा-7 Administration of Evacuee Property Act के अनुसार जब कोई सम्पत्ति शत्रु सम्पत्ति की परिभाषा में आती है तो उक्त सम्पत्ति के सम्बन्ध में नोटिफिकेशन निकाला जाता है जिससे यदि किसी व्यक्ति का हित उक्त सम्पत्ति में निहित है तो वह उक्त के सम्बन्ध में आवेदन कर सकें। धारा-7 का नोटिफिकेशन होने के पश्चात् धारा-8 के अनुसार उक्त सम्पत्ति सरकार में निहित हो जाती है। यदि धारा-16 के अन्तर्गत किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा शत्रु सम्पत्ति में दावा नहीं किया जाता तो उक्त सम्पत्ति सभी भारों से मुक्त होकर सरकार में निहित हो जाती है। सरकार को निष्क्रान्त सम्पत्ति विक्रय करने का पूर्ण अधिकार है।
यदि यह मान भी लिया जाये कि प्रतिवादी संख्या 1 तथा उनके पूर्वज पाकिस्तान नहीं गये थे तो उनके द्वारा विवादित सम्पत्ति के शत्रु सम्पत्ति घोषित किये जाने के समय कोई आपत्ति क्यों नहीं की गयी, इसका कोई स्पष्ट उत्तर प्रतिवादीगण द्वारा अपने जवाबदावे में नहीं किया गया है। प्रतिवादीगण दिनांक 14.01.2015 के बैनामा के आधार पर कोई कब्जा हो, ऐसा कोई कथन प्रतिवाद पत्र में नहीं है, जबकि धारा 54 टी०पी०ए० के अनुसार कब्जे का परिदान विक्रय का आवश्यक तथ्य है।
अतः साबित है कि बैनामा दिनाँक 08.04.1996 कभी Act upon नहीं हुआ। ऐसी स्थिति में विवादित सम्पत्ति के शत्रु सम्पत्ति घोषित हो जाने के पश्चात् तथा बुद्ध सिंह द्वारा सम्पत्ति खरीद लेने के बाद प्रतिवादी को 08.04.1996 के बैनामे के आधार पर प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 ता 4 के पक्ष में बैनामा करने का कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं था।
अतः उपरोक्त विवेचन से यह साबित है वादी विवादित सम्पत्ति के मालिक काबिज है तथा प्रतिवादी संख्या 1 को विवादित सम्पत्ति का बैनामा दिनाँक 14.01.2015 को प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 ता 4 के पक्ष में निष्पादित किये जाने का हक नहीं था। अतः वाद बिन्दु संख्या 1 व 2 वादी के पक्ष में तथा प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध निस्तारित किये जाते हैं।"
20. The opposite party no.2 has been held to not entitled to the property, in question, as per the civil court judgment. The applicants were pursuing the property of which the applicants were the owner and as such it cannot be stated that the applicants have committed any offence.
21. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the supreme court has has laid down the categories of cases by way of illustration wherein power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Categories pointed out in the said judgement is stated in para-102, which is quoted herein below :
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter-XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".
22. In the present case, it is to be seen that applicants have been summoned under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC by summoning order dated 04.03.2017. The complainant case is to the effect that the property in question was in the ownership of complainant and the sale-deed was executed on 14.01.2015 by the complainant in favour of one Javed. The applicants were interfering in the aforesaid property and wanted to take illegal possession of the property in question and have prepared forged documents with regard to the ownership of the property in question. It is also alleged that on 03.02.2015 at about 2:00 PM applicants have entered into the house of the complainant and have abused, assaulted and threatened them for taking possession of the property in question. It is further to be seen that in the present case, the dispute arises out of a property which was subject matter of the dispute in a civil suit being Original Suit No. 58 of 2015 (Syed Masood Ahmad vs. Haidar Ali and others). The suit was filed by the applicants and the same has been decreed and sale-deed dated 14.01.2015 has been cancelled by judgment dated 21.09.2022. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the opposite party.
23. The court of civil jurisdiction has recorded a specific finding that the applicants are owners of the property in question and permanent injunction has been issued against opposite party no.2 by the civil court. The dispute in the present case is primarily a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the property and in order to pressurise the applicants criminal proceedings were lodged, neither there is any injury report brought on record nor the aforesaid incident having any criminal overtones can be said to be occurred. The civil dispute has already been decided by the court of civil jurisdiction and it has not been brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid judgment of civil court has been set aside by any higher court. Once the present allegations are in overtone of the civil dispute, then the present criminal proceedings are an abuse of process of law in view of the law laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), as the applicants are lawful owner of the property, in question.
24. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 is allowed. The entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 1364/16 (Haidar Ali Vs. Syed Masood Ahmad and others) pending before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M., Amroha, as well as, impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha, in Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2017 (Syed Masood Ahmad and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and summoning order dated the impugned 04.03.2017 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M., Amroha in Complaint No.1364 of 2016 (Haidar Ali vs. Syed Masood Ahmad and others), are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 28.07.2025 S.Prakash (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)