Prepared by: Adv.

Aayush Shankar
Date: 4th August 2026

POINTS TO ARGUE

SLP(C) NO. 19360 OF 2025

AND IN THE MATTER OF

DR. YASHPAL SINGH ....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS

[FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 & HER HUSBAND]

1. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad had made the right final judgement by denying the
quashing of FIR no.666 of 2025, as cognizable offences has been made out as per learned
A.G.A and no interference is warranted in the impugned First Information Report. The FIR
prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences. The act of physical violence
cannot be viewed as a matter of civil nature.
• According to Section 469 (b) of the CRPC - There has been no delay in lodging of the
FIR, as the cause of action arose only in the year 2025, when Mrs. Manju Mishra,
Respondent No. 4, came to know about the physical occupation of the subject property.
• Also, check Section 473 of the CRPC - Extension of period of limitation in certain
cases.
Supporting judgments made by supreme court
• State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal. And others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.
• M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918
• Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 {Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another
vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh).
• Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriga v. Anand. Athabhai chaudhari, (2022) 15 SCC 228
• Punit Beriwal v. state (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 - Delay in reporting
offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years is not by itself a
ground for quashing the investigation; it is a matter to be considered at trial when the
complainant is examined on oat
• (most recent judgment) Miteshbhai J. Patel v. Drug Inspector, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2203
2. The various cases against Mr. Mishra were merely because he was the employee at the
company (N.I.I.L Florence Platinum) and working in a representative capacity, not as an
 individual. After the bankruptcy of the Company, he was given a No- Objection Letter
dated 16. Sept. 20216
• Kindly see: ANNEXURE- A, @PG NO. 28

3. The Petitioners themselves have admitted that there is no dispute regarding ownership of
the subject property. Even assuming the dispute relates to the alleged transfer of funds and
the forged agreement to sell, the appropriate remedy, if any, would have been a suit for
specific performance. The impugned FIR concerns unauthorized occupation of the subject
property, along with offences involving physical threat and violence. These allegations
require a detailed criminal investigation and trial. It is well settled that where allegations
disclose cheating, fraud, or breach of trust, criminal proceedings are maintainable even if
the dispute also has civil elements.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 622
held that civil remedies do not bar criminal prosecution where ingredients of cheating and
fraud are made out.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and
Another (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Rakhi v. State of Telangana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2773
held that civil disputes with criminal ingredients can validly proceed as criminal cases.

4. It is respectfully submitted that, firstly, FIR No. 611 of 2019 categorically named “Bharat
Mishra” as the person to whom financial help of Rs. 26,31,800/- was allegedly disbursed,
who is a person unknown to Respondent No. 4 or her husband, Mr. Mishra.
• Kindly see: Annexure P/6 of the SLP

5. Secondly, Respondent No. 4 had no knowledge of any criminal proceedings, if any,

6. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned FIR prima facie discloses cognizable
offences. The allegations are specific, relating to illegal occupation of the subject property,
fabrication of forged documents, identification of the persons involved, and the manner of
threats. Supporting material was also submitted to the police.
• Kindly see: Annexure F, PG no. 41 @ 64, and Annexure G, PG no. 65 @ 66

7. The closure report dated 19.10.2020 is based only on local inquiry and does not contain
any independent direct evidence that Respondent No. 4 and her husband were residing in
Nepal. In fact, they had returned to their ancestral home in Patna, Bihar.
• Kindly see: Annexure 8, PG no. 80
8. It is respectfully submitted that continuation of the criminal investigation is necessary, as
there are allegations of forgery and fabrication of several documents, including the
acknowledgment receipts, the possession letter dated 21.05.2016, and the agreement to sell
dated 10.10.2019. Further, the Petitioner and the other accused have been absconding and
have not cooperated with the investigation despite repeated notices. The actions of the
police are lawful and cannot be termed collusive. In any event, these are bald allegations
without proof and can be examined only during a detailed criminal trial.
9. The alleged transaction was a sham along with the transfer of the subjected property. The
alleged agreement is a forged and fabricated document. A bare perusal of Annexure P-4
@ 61 would reveal its vague if the material particulars is taken into accounts,
moreover the possession letter is “Typed” on the letterhead of the Company, whereas
as per the petitioner’s own alleged case, the possession letter was handwritten
(Annexure P -12 @ PG no. 104, 5th para) which contradicts the entire set of allegations
qua transaction, execution, agreement to sell are completely false, fabricated and baseless.
10. Sections – 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is clearly there as physical violence was meted to
Respondent No. 4 (Mrs. Manju Mishra). She also recognized all forged documents, not
only limited to the agreement to sell dated 10.10.2019 but also the acknowledgment of
receipts concerning the alleged sham transaction.
• CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 3 SCC 175 – that no FIR should be quashed at the
nascent stage of the investigation just because the ingredients of the said offences are not
disclosed in the FIR.
11. It is respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 4 is taking appropriate legal steps to have
the injunction order dated 17.10.2025 vacated. The said ex parte injunction was passed on
the very day the suit was filed, in the absence of Respondent No. 4, which shows misuse
of civil process to aid a private dispute. The allegations of forcible dispossession and police
threat are mere conjectures, and no violation of Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution
of India is made out.
12. if the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the
same facts
• S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 - the Supreme Court
reaffirmed that while simultaneous proceedings are allowed.
13. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is not required to
conduct a detailed examination of evidence. The acknowledgement receipts (2014–15),
possession letter dated 21.05.2016, and agreement to sell dated 10.10.2019 are forged and
fabricated documents, the truth of which can be determined only at trial. The Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not bar criminal proceedings
against a senior citizen. Respondent No. 4 was subjected to coercion, intimidation, and
unlawful threats, and was left with no option but to initiate criminal proceedings by filing
the impugned FIR.
14. When the sale agreement dated 16.10.2015 was executed, Respondent No. 4 and her
husband were residing in the subject property. Thereafter, till August 2016, they continued
to reside there, and due to Mr. Mishra’s ill health, they had to lock the flat and return to
their ancestral home in Patna, Bihar. Upon returning in 2025, Respondent No. 4 was
shocked to find out unknown persons were residing there after trespassing and intruding in
the subject property illegally.
15. Respondent No. 4 didn't have any idea of a FIR filed by the petitioner in 2019, against her
and her husband until she came back to Agra in 2025. A false and frivolous complaint was
filed along with a wrong allege Respondent No. 4 has absconded to Nepal. It must be
emphasized that Respondent No. 4 occasionally resides at Nepal and permanently resides
at Patna, Bihar.
16. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner, along with his associates, made obscene
gestures, abused Respondent No. 4, threatened to kill her, and physically assaulted her
when she returned to the subject property in 2025. He further slapped her and forcibly
threw her out of the property, compelling her to file the impugned FIR under Sections 323,
504, 506, 294, and 427 IPC.
17. It is respectfully submitted that permitting the plea that continuation of criminal
proceedings would cause grave injustice and violate Article 21 at this stage would
undermine the criminal justice process. Every accused undergoing investigation or trial
could raise a similar contention solely on account of age or procedural inconvenience. It is
settled by law that, at this stage, this Hon'ble Court is not required to undertake a detailed
appreciation or examination of the documentary evidence. The proceedings, therefore,
deserve to continue in accordance with the law.