Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1655
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Rekha Gupta and Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 6919 of 2015
Decided on : 02-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.S. Shah, Adv., Ram Ker Singh, Adv., S.L. Kesharwani, Adv., Saurabh Srivastava, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the acceptance of payment for a sale, without executing the sale deed, can indicate an intention to cheat, leading to both civil and criminal liabilities.
Headnote:
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the validity of unregistered agreements, the definition of cheating under section 419 IPC, and the distinction between civil and criminal liabilities.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the sale of a plot of land, with allegations of fraud and cheating. The accused-applicants accepted an amount for the sale but did not execute the sale deed, subsequently selling the plot to other parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-applicants had accepted an amount for the sale and did not return it, indicating an intention to cheat. The court held that the dispute involved both civil and criminal liabilities, and the matter should be decided at trial.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the unregistered agreement, the acceptance of payment, and the distinction between civil and criminal liabilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the acceptance of payment indicated an intention to cheat, and the dispute involved both civil and criminal liabilities, which should be determined at trial.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application to quash the proceedings, stating that the matter should be decided at trial.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri S.S. Shah, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Laukush Kumar Shukla for opposite party no. 2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1582 of 2014 arising out of case crime no. 722 of 2013 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
3. To understand the dispute involved in the present case, it would be appropriate to recount here the facts of the matter, which are as follows:-
4. The opposite party no. 2 has lodged an FIR in the present case on 16.11.2013 stating therein that he had got an agreement to sell executed of half portion of plot No. A-82 situated in Takshila Colony, Garh Road, Meerut which was owned by one Rekha Gupta accused-applicant no. 1 wife of Ved Prakash on 1.07.2008 after advancing her an amount Rs.50,000/- and the remaining portion of the said plot was agreed to be sold in favour of brother of opposite party no. 2 Subhash Chandra and from him also the same amount was taken i.e. Rs.50,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the accused-applicant no. 1 was required to execute the sale deed of the said plot after obtaining permission as well as obtaining succession certificate within one month but the accused-applicant no. 1 had taken on various dates an amount of Rs.6,00,00/- from the brother of opposite party no. 2 and Rs.16,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 2, apart from amount which was already advanced under the agreement on the pretext for seeking permission and continued to avoid execution of the sale deed saying that she had not got permission and sometimes she would say that her son was not agreed to the said sale. The opposite party no. 2 due to old relation with the accused-applicant could not put much pressure on her and believing her assurance continued to pay her money but he came to know that the accused-applicant no. 1 had taken permission stealthy from the committee on 10.11.2009 and she was keeping him under false impression that the same had not been given and thus she wanted to usurp the amount which had already been extended to her by playing fraud upon the opposite party no. 2. Further it is mentioned in the said FIR that in order to usurp the said money of opposite party no. 2 and his brother, accused applicant no. 1 and accused-applicant nos. 2 to 4 who are his sons namely, Varun Gupta, Rajat Gupta and Vaibhav Gupta had conspired with each other and sold the said plot to one Vimla wife of Brahma Singh, Dinesh Kumar son of Brahma Singh, Savita wife of Dinesh Kumar, resident of 118-B, Takshila Colony, Meerut in a forged manner also colluding with the Registrar and representing that the said property was clear property. When the opposite party no. 2 talked to Vimla, Dinesh Kumar and Savita etc. it transpired that they had full knowledge about the agreement having been executed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 in respect of the said plot but in order to deprive the opposite party no. 2 of his rights, they got the said sale deed executed in their favour with ill intention, playing fraud upon the opposite party no. 2. They raised illegal wall on the said plot on the northern side and wanted to grab the whole plot. When the opposite party no.2 visited the spot and tried to stop illegal possession being taken, they indulged in abusing and also gave threat that the said plot had been purchased by them and if he comes again, he would be killed. The Investigating Officer, after having investigated the case, submitted charge-sheet against the above-mentioned accused-applicants under the abovementioned sections.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it
