Back
2020 Supreme(All) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
Kamal Singh And Another – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. 20016 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2020
For the Applicant : Rahul Sahai, Nirvikar Gupta
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Bhavya Sahai, Naveen Srivastava
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Prayer to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case, including order passed by the whereby protest petition has been treated as a complaint case and summoning order – Challenged – Held, Real consideration to be paid and the real agreement entered in between was an unregistered document. According to which remaining sale consideration was to be given i.e. the registry officials were deceived for getting the deed registered, which was with incorrect mention of consideration and getting the same registered to be believed to be true and correct one. This offence will amount deception apparently fulfilling the ingredients of a cognizable offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. It will be against both the would be vendee and the would be vendor i.e. the parties to above agreement including applicant no. 1. This aspect was also required to be inquired under section 202 Cr.P.C. then after summoning order, if any, against accused, against whom offences were made out, was to be passed – Application allowed. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the Case
Applicant no. 1 had fraudulently executed sale deed of land in question in favour of applicant no. 2, hence, cause of action had arisen for this civil suit and it was filed for above relief. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. for ad-interim injunction was filed with above contention of plaint – with ulterior motive of blackmailing and harassing the applicants, who are poor illiterate farmers. Investigation resulted in submission of final report on 14.3.2015. Protest petition was filed, which was treated as a complaint case with ulterior motive of blackmailing and harassing the applicants, who are poor illiterate farmers. Investigation resulted in submission of final report on 14.3.2015. Protest petition was filed, which was treated as a complaint case.
Finding of the Court
Real consideration to be paid and the real agreement entered in between was an unregistered document. According to which remaining sale consideration was to be given i.e. the registry officials were deceived for getting the deed registered, which was with incorrect mention of consideration and getting the same registered to be believed to be true and correct one. This offence will amount deception apparently fulfilling the ingredients of a cognizable offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. It will be against both the would be vendee and the would be vendor i.e. the parties to above agreement including applicant no. 1. This aspect was also required to be inquired under section 202 Cr.P.C. then after summoning order, if any, against accused, against whom offences were made out, was to be passed.
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Kamal Singh and Ramesh Chandra against State of U.P. and Brahm Kumar Agarwal with prayer to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1339 of 2019, Brahm Kumar Vs. Kamal Singh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Vrindavan, district Mathura, pending in court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, Mathura, including order dated 30.7.2018 passed by the A.C.J.M., Mathura, whereby protest petition has been treated as a complaint case and summoning order dated 26.4.2019 passed in above mentioned Complaint Case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that applicant no. 1 was recorded tenure holder of Chak No. 115 Gata No. 477 area 0.893 hectare situate at village Jait, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura. He entered into an agreement with O.P. No. 2 for sale of his plot in dispute for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,32,29,630/-. But complainant requested for mentioning of lower amount of sum because if entire sale consideration is mentioned in the agreement to sell, the same would entail a heavy stamp duty. In such circumstances and notwithstanding with the fact that the earnest money of Rs. 33,07,407/-was received by applicant no. 1, agreement to sell was executed mentioning earnest money to be Rs. 20 lacs and total sale consideration to be Rs. 50 lacs despite the fact that the complainant was required to pay balance sale consideration as against Rs. 1,32,29,630/-. But after payment of Rs. 20 lacs the informant-complainant failed to pay above balance consideration resulting lapse of sum in term of agreement entered in between in form of forfeiture clause. The earnest money paid by first informant stood forfeited. A supplementary agreement was also executed in between parties on 29.5.2013 and the time for execution of sale deed was extended. Even then on account of failure on the part of first informant of being able to pay balance sale consideration and being ready and willing to have the sale deed executed, the applicant no. 1 was not bound by above agreement to sell dated 29.6.2012. Applicant no. 1 executed a sale deed for the same land in favour of applicant no. 2, Ramesh Chandra, on 1.9.2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-, which was a valid transaction entered in between. The first informant instituted O.S. No. 913 of 2014 for a decree of relief of specific performance of contract/ agreement to sell dated 29.6.2012 with a contention that the applicant no. 1, being bhumidhar of plot in dispute, had entered into a registered agreement to sell with plaintiff/ first informant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 50 lacs for which Rs. 20 lacs was paid by way of earnest money and deed of agreement to sell was executed on 29.6.2012 with a condition of limitation of one year for execution of sale deed for it. Time and again payment was being made to applicant no. 1, but he did not show his willingness to have sale deed executed. Hence a supplementary agreement was also executed in between parties on 29.5.2013. But it revealed to the plaintiff-first informant that applicant no. 1 had fraudulently executed sale deed of land in question in favour of applicant no. 2, hence, cause of action had arisen for this civil suit and it was filed for above relief. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. for ad-interim injunction was filed with above contention of plaint. Written statement and objection over above application were also filed by present applicants and after hearing on merit the ad-interim injunction application was rejected by court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, vide order dated 21.7.2016. Against this order a First
