Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Anwar Ahmad Siddiqui vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 February, 2026
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …………… OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025)
ANWAR AHMAD SIDDIQUI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the final order and
judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed by High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Application
No. 1388 of 2025 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973,1 whereby the High Court declined to
interfere with the summoning order dated 04.01.2025
passed by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 140799
of 2023 and dismissed the said application.
3. The factual matrix leading up to this appeal is as
follows:
3.1. The appellant, respondent No. 4 and 5 are real brothers.
Signature Not Verified The dispute pertains to a property bearing LIG House
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.03.11
17:20:57 IST
Reason:
No. 1/82, Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The
1 In short, CrPC.
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 1
said property was purchased by Late Ishtiyaq Ahmed,
the father of the parties, pursuant to a sale deed
executed by Lucknow Development Authority in 1996.
3.2. The appellant alleges that on 20.10.2008, his father
executed an oral hiba in favour of his wife, Razia Bano
in respect of the suit property in the presence of
respondent No. 5 and two independent witnesses and
the appellant himself.
3.3. After his father’s death, Late Razia Bano’s name came to
be recorded in the municipal record through mutation
proceedings in 2012.
3.4. It is the case of the appellant that subsequently on
18.04.2012, Razia Bano executed a registered Will in
favour of respondent No. 5, bequeathing the suit
property in his favour.
3.5. After her death in 2021, respondent No. 5 sought
mutation of the property in his favour for the purposes
of paying housing tax, which was allowed by the
authorities by a certificate dated 06.12.2022.
3.6. It was after that, that respondent No. 4 lodged FIR No.
0144/2023 dated 05.03.2023 under Sections 420, 467,
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 2
468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 at
P.S. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow alleging that the appellant
and respondent No. 5 had fraudulently caused mutation
of property in the name of Late Razia Bano.
3.7. The police conducted investigation, recorded statement
of the informant and the witnesses and concluded that
there was no incriminating evidence against the
appellant and respondent No. 5. The final report was
filed on 10.05.2023, noting that the FIR was filed to give
a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute.
3.8. Notwithstanding the said report, respondent No. 4 filed
a protest petition dated 17.11.2023. By an order dated
04.01.2025, the Trial Court allowed the protest petition
and issued summons against the appellant and
respondent No. 5 for offence under Section 420 CrPC. It
recorded that the appellant and respondent No. 5
connived and got their mother’s name, who had become
very old, mutated in the records. It was also observed
that the brothers had conspired to get the will made in
the favour of respondent No. 5.
3.9. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by
filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking
2 In short, IPC.
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 3
quashing of the summoning order as well as the
proceedings arising therefrom. The High Court
dismissed the petition vide the impugned order dated
13.02.2025 on the ground that the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC disclosed a prima
facie cognizable offence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and examined the material placed no record,
including the settlement arrived at between the parties.
We are of the considered opinion that the High Court
has fell in complete error in dismissing the quashing
petition.
5. At the outset, it appears to us that the dispute between
the parties arises out of a claim to family property,
which is essentially civil in nature. The complaint filed
by respondent No. 4 proceeds on the assertion that the
property originally belonging to Late Ishtiyaq Ahmed,
father of the parties, came to be fraudulently mutated in
the name of Late Razia Bano, mother of the parties and
thereafter in the name of respondent No. 5, resulting in
respondent no. 4 being deprived of his share. Even if
these allegations are taken at their face value, they
primarily relate to entries in the municipal records and
the issue of partition, which ought to have been
challenged by way of appropriate civil proceedings.
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 4
6. It is well-settled that mutation entries in revenue
records do not confer any title to the property and are
only used for fiscal purposes. Disputes regarding title or
succession cannot be determined on the basis of
mutation entries and must necessarily be adjudicated
before a competent civil court.
7. As for the offence of cheating which respondent No. 4
alleges, it is very clear to us that the statements
recorded before the Magistrate do not disclose the
ingredients of the said offence. The witnesses examined
in support of the complaint merely state that the
property belonged to the father and that after his death,
the brothers were entitled to the shares therein. In
addition to this, they only state that the appellant and
respondent No. 5 are attempting to deprive the
complainant of his share on the basis of the will
executed by their mother.
8. Even if these allegations are accepted in their entirety,
they do not establish deception or dishonest
inducement, which is the key ingredient to make out an
offence under Section 420 IPC. There is no assertion to
the effect that their mother, or the complainant were
induced to part with the property by way of fraud.
9. The material placed on record further shows that the
investigating agency, after concluding investigation in
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 5
FIR no. 0144 of 2023, in the final report dated
10.05.2023 noted that no incriminating evidence was
found and that the dispute was primarily civil in nature.
The Trial Court in allowing the protest petition and
issuing a summoning order fell in error since it
converted a purely civil issue into a criminal one,
without there being any good reason for the same.
10. Another fact which deserves due attention is the delay
with which the criminal proceedings have been initiated.
The mutation records which the complainant sought to
challenge date back to 2012. The FIR giving rise to the
present proceedings came to be lodged only in 2023,
nearly eleven years thereafter. No satisfactory
explanation has been given for the same. The inordinate
delay in invoking the criminal process for a dispute
relating to division of family property lends support to
the conclusion that the proceedings have been initiated
to pressurize the appellant in what is essentially a civil
dispute.
11. Equally concerning is the manner in which the High
Court has dealt with the petition under Section 482
CrPC. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3
has laid down in very clear terms that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to prevent
3 AIR 1992 SC 604.
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 6
abuse of the process of law. The High Courts stand as
sentinels of the crime process. They are entrusted with
the duty, and the power, to ensure that the machinery
of criminal law is not set in motion by individuals to
harass another or to further personal ends. The High
Court in this case simply dismissed the petition by a
brief order stating that the statements recorded disclose
a cognizable office. It neither analyzed the nature of the
allegations, nor did it consider if the ingredients of the
offence of cheating are made out. The High Court was
dutybound to examine whether the continuation of
criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice,
which it has failed to do in this case.
12. We would again like to reiterate that the approach
adopted by both the High Court and the Trial Court in
treating this civil dispute as a criminal case is wholly
erroneous and unjustified. The complainant’s limited
grievance was pertaining to questions of inheritance and
entitlement to family property, which falls well within
the scope of civil law. Resorting to criminal process in
such cases is clearly unwarranted.
13. During the course of proceedings before this Court, it
has been brought to our notice that the parties, who are
real brothers, have arrived at a settlement with respect
to their dispute concerning the property in question. In
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 7
view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the
continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose.
14. Having regard to the nature of allegations, and the
settlement arrived at between the parties, we are of the
considered view that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of
law.
15. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned order
passed by the High Court is set aside. The summoning
order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Trial Court in
Complaint Case No. 140799 of 2023 and the
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 16, 2026
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 8
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.2 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
6158/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
13-02-2025 in A482 No. 1388/2025 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]
ANWAR AHMAD SIDDIQUI Petitioner(s)/
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 259099/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 103655/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 259098/2025 – STAY APPLICATION
Date : 16-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTAFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Anurag Kishore, AOR
Mr. Lakhan Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Srivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 9
Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Adv.
Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AORUPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the
signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]
CRL.A. @ SLP (CRL.) No. 6158 of 2025 10
