Aggrieved thereby, Gullu filed a Civil Misc.
135 of 1982.
The investigation was thereafter taken up.
Thereafter, the respondent No.
Jai Singh, Chatar Pal, Nanakchand and Jaichand.
On or about 22.08.1997, a sale deed was executed by the appellant Nos.
135 of 1982.
Girdhar, Roopa and Harikesh.
Appellants filed an application for quashing the said First Information Report before the High Court.
382 of 2005.
Share of defendant Devendra and Rajendra th is in disputed land.
According to the appellants, the share of Naraina in Bharat Smt.
It arises in the following factual matrix The parties are companysharers.
Girdhar,Roopa Girdhar Naraina Gabru Naraina Harikesh Roopa and Gabru, Died issueless Died issueless Gullu Harikesh.
Appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of Deputy District Magistrate First Class Ghaziabad praying for dismissal of the suit No.
Indisputably, Jai Chand Saharam Nanak Chattar Pal Jai Singh Died Died Died Gabru died issueless.
Questioning the legality of the said order, the appellants filed another application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which by reason of the impugned judgment, has been dismissed.
135 of 1982, it was stated that Solhu had five sons.
It was marked as Criminal Misc.
By an order dated 19.03.1984, the said decree was modified opining that 3/8th share in the joint family belonged to sons of Roopa, viz.,
The genealogical tree of the family is as under SOLHU Solhu had five sons, viz.,
Writ Petition bearing No.
Ghaziabad.
Appellant Nos.
By an order dated 24.11.1983, the said suit was decreed, stating Plaintiff Gullu has share in disputed land.
An application for impleadment was also filed by the appellants in Civil Misc.
3 and 4.
On 24.08.2005, a suit was filed by the respondent No.
1 and 2 in favour of the appellant Nos.
2 and others for cancelling the aforesaid deed of sale dated 22.08.1997, which was registered as Civil Suit No.
Gullu filed an appeal thereagainst before the Commissioner, Meerut Division.
Writ Petition No.
1 and 2 were number impleaded.
The High Court by its order dated 7.11.1985, while issuing numberice, stayed the operation of the order dated 21.10.1985 passed by the Board of Revenue.
Phool Singh Om Pal Janter Sunder the joint family, who died issueless, devolved upon among the three Devendra Rajendra Munni surviving brothers, viz.,
17667 of 1985 before the High Court wherein the appellant Nos.
Writ Petition No.
On or about 17.03.1982, Gullu, son of Harikesh filed a suit for partition of his 1/3rd share before the Additional Sub Divisional Officer, Pargana being Suit No.
Aggrieved by the said order, Jai Singh, son of Roopa, filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which by an order dated 21.10.1985 set aside the order dated 19.03.1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner and affirmed the order of the Additional Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.11.1983.
Share of defendants Jai Singh, ChatarPal, Nanakchand and Jaichand is in disputed land.
A chargesheet was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
17669 of 1985.
10568 of 2005.
However, according to the respondent No.
1 and 2 are grand sons of Girdhar.
The said suit is still pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge Junior Div.
On or about 21.09.2005, the respondent No.
By an order dated 17.10.2005, the High Court, while dismissing the said application, directed The investigating officer will make all possible efforts to companyclude the investigation within three months of the date on which a certified order of this order is served upon him.
In the said suit, however, it was averred that Solhu had four sons whereas in the suit No.
2, the share of Naraina devolved upon Rupa and Harikesh.
2 filed a First Information Report in the Police Station, Sahni Gate on 21.09.2005.
2 filed an application in the Police Station, Kavinagar, Ghaziabad wherein the City Magistrate by an order dated 17.09.2005 passed an order to hear the companyplainant and register a First Information Report.
Whether a pure civil dispute can be a subject matter of a criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code is the question involved herein.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
