Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Omkar Nath Singh And Others - Revisionist
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Another - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 1124 of 2017
Decided On : 18-01-2019
For the Revisionist : Sameer Jain
For the Opposite Party : G.A.,Nandini Mishra
The main legal point established is that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, and the court has the power to discharge the accused if the material presented rules out the allegations and prevents abuse of the court's process.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Revision - Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over an agreement to sell land executed in 1978, leading to a criminal complaint filed in 2013. The revisionists argued that the civil dispute had been settled by multiple court judgments and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal complaint, filed 35 years after the agreement, was an abuse of process and lacked the basic elements to constitute the alleged offenses. It also noted that the intention behind the complaint was to settle a civil dispute through criminal prosecution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and if the basic elements of the alleged offenses were lacking.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and lacked the basic elements to constitute the alleged offenses, citing previous judgments and the excessive delay in filing the complaint.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the criminal revision, discharging the revisionists from the charges.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Kunwar Rahul Ji, holding brief of Ms. Nandini Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Criminal Revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist Omkar Nath Singh, Rai Sahab Singh and Suraj Kumar Singh against the order dated 8.2.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.1098 of 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. Omkar Nath Singh and others) under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionists under section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
Basic facts
3. This case has a chequered history of litigations between the parties. Factual matrix of the case are that one agreement to sell (Satta-Ikrarnama) dated 3.5.1978 was executed by the revisionists in favour of Gopal Ji Singh (father of opposite party no.2) after taking an advance amount of Rs.20,000/from Gopal Ji Singh in respect of 1/3 share of land araji No.290 area 06 decimel, 293/1 area 191/4 decimel, 468 area 28 decimel, araji No.546 area 5.66 decimel situated in village Bhagwanpur, Pargana Dehat, District Varanasi and 1/3 share of land araji No.558 area 0.42 decimal, 559 area 114 decimal, 626 area 48 decimel, 627 area 52 decimal, 632 area 39 decimal and 631 area 46 decimel land situated in village Chhitupur pargana Amanatpur, District Varanasi.
4. At the time of execution of the agreement to sale of aforesaid land, one Case No.1558/75 was already pending in the court of second Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi under section 229B/176 L.R. Act, in respect of the land under the agreement to sale dated 3.5.1978 between the revisionist and Aditya Kunwar and another. Agreement to sale dated 3.5.1978 was conditional that on deciding the Case No.1588/75 the registered sale deed shall be executed in favour of Gopal Ji Singh (father of opposite party no.2). It is submitted that Gopal Ji Singh died in the year 2001 during pendency of the aforesaid case, therefore the sale deed could not be executed pursuant to agreement to sale dated 3.5.1978. Record indicates that the said Case No.1558/75, was ultimately decreed on 20.5.2005 on the basis of compromise dated 25.4.2005 between the parties.
5. The main grievance of the opposite party no.2 is that the revisionists by committing fraud had executed the agreement to sale dated 3.5.1978 in favour of the father of the opposite party no.2 on the assurance that on the disposal of Case No.1588/75 the sale deed will be executed and they had taken the amount of Rs.20,000/from the father of opposite party no.2 in the year 1978, but the revisionists have not executed the sale deed in respect of the land under the agreement to sale dated 3.5.1978. On such allegation opposite party no.2 filed impugned complaint dated 08.10.2013 against the revisionists under sections 418, 419, 420,427, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Varanasi. The Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. on 10.2.2013 and statement of the witness Lal Bahadur Yadav as PW1 on 25.10.2013, summoned the revisionists by order dated 17.2.2014 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. to face trial.
6. The revisionist aggrieved by summoning order dated 17.1.2014 passed by Magistrate, approached this Court by filing an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3656/14. The said application was disposed of by order dated 6.2.2014, which is reproduced herein below:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.1098 of 2013, under section 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC pending in the court of J.M. Court No.1,
