Spread the love
Date of Judgment  28-02-2022 
Court  Supreme Court of India
Case Type Criminal Appeal No 295 of 2022 
PetitionerSyed Yaseer Ibrahim 
Respondent  State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Petitioner’s AdvocateMr. Gaurav Khanna, AOR Ms. Sadhvi Swarup, Adv.
Respondent’s Advocate Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Ms. Vanya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishita Bedi, Adv
Sections ReferredSection 482 of CrPC, Section 420 of IPC


This is an important case as there are instances where civil cases are represented as a criminal offence when it is not so and such happened in this case where the appellant was wrongfully charged under section 420 of IPC.


  1. This case came before the honorable Supreme Court after the dismissal of the petition by a single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under section 482 of CrPC,1973.
  2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner claims to have a title over an immovable property that was acquired by him as a result of a gift deed on 2nd January 2002. 
  3. In the year 2008 a person filed a civil suit against the appellant for the possession of the property which he claims had a will which was executed by his brother. 
  4. In the year 2009, the civil judge allowed the petition and stated to maintain the status quo of the property but on 10th September,2010 the appellant entered into an agreement to sell the property but that was eventually dismissed as the land was disputed.
  5.  It is alleged that on 24 November 2014, the appellant executed the sale deed and now in the year 2020 an FIR which was already filed earlier is registered by the second respondent claiming the property. 
  6. The allegations before the court were that the appellant had committed an offence against sections 420,323,504 and 506 of IPC and after investigation, the case came before the high court under section 482 of CrPC.


  1. Whether the appellant can be punished under section 420 of IPC?
  2. Whether the Charge-sheet should be quashed or not?



  1. It is argued by the appellant that the entire petition is civil.
  2. It is further argued that the charge sheet is nothing but the recital that a suit is pending before the civil judge.
  3. They stated that no offence under Section 420 of IPC had been found after the investigation and that it should be quashed.


It is argued based on the charge sheet that the sale of property comes under the doctrine of Lis Pendens. It is presented before the court that relying on the FIR and Chargesheet the contentions of the appellant have differed. Moreover, as the sale happened while the suit was pending the doctrine of lis pendens will apply.


The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment given by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. They quashed the charges under section 420 of IPC as there is no evidence of cheating in the investigation and the petition under Section 482 of CrPc will stand allowed by quashing the chargesheet. All other applications are also disposed of.

This Article is written by Jayanti Roy of Department of Law, Calcutta University, intern at Legal Vidhiya.



Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *