The legality of the revocation of the Power of Attorney is a matter to be pleaded and established in civil proceedings and cannot be a scope of adjudication in a criminal complaint.

ORDER :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri. Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri. Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482, Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 10.08.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bhadohi, in Complaint Case No. 340 of 2013 (Ram Abhilakh v. Arjun & others), under Sections-419, 420, I.P.C., Police Station-Suriyawan, District- Bhadohi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bhadohi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature and there was no occurrence of any criminal offence. It is thus submitted that undisputed facts of the case are that the applicants Arjun, Bheem and Ramu (Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3) had executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of opposite party No. 2 on 24.12.1993 with respect to their agricultural land. Acting under the said general Power of Attorney, opposite party No. 2 executed a registered sale deed on 08.03.1999 in favour of his sons Lal Chandra, Suresh Chandra, Mata Shankar and Dinesh Chandra.

4. According to the applicants, prior to execution of the aforesaid sale deed, applicant No. 1 had revoked the general Power of Attorney executed in favour of the opposite party No. 2 on 10.02.1999. Since, opposite party No. 2 had proceeded to execute the sale deed in favour of his sons after cancellation of the general Power of Attorney, the applicants further instituted Civil Suit No. 193 of 1999 on 31st March, 1999 seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.03.1999. The said suit is stated to be still pending.

5. More than 13 years thereafter, the applicants, during pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, appear to have executed the sale deed dated 08.01.2013.

6. While, the opposite party No. 2 had knowledge of the aforesaid facts, solely for the purpose of causing pressure on the applicants to withdraw from the civil proceeding, the present criminal prosecution was lodged by adopting the complaint procedure. Relying on the complaint allegation, it has been submitted, while the execution of the general Power of Attorney sale deed dated 08.03.1999; institution of Original Suit No. 193 of 1999 for cancellation of that sale deed and execution of agreement to sell dated 08.01.2013 had been specifically mentioned in the complaint, by means of paragraph No. 4 thereof, it has also been mentioned that the general Power of Attorney executed in favour of opposite party No. 2 was revoked. Referring to paragraph No. 5 of Original Suit No. 193 of 1999, it has been stated that the date of cancellation of the general Power of Attorney was duly disclosed to the opposite party No. 2. Since the filing of the aforesaid suit proceeding is admitted to opposite party No. 2 in the complaint, it has to be assumed and that the said opposite party No. 2 had knowledge of the date of cancellation of the general Power of Attorney.

7. Thus, it has been submitted that whatever rights, the opposite party No. 2 may claim against the applicants would remain confined to the domain of the civil courts. Those defences being open, there did not ever occur any offence of cheating, inasmuch as there was no deceptive act on the part of the applicants as may have caused any harm to opposite party No. 2.

8. Responding to the above, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, would submit that the general Power of Attorney could not have been revoked except in accordance with the terms specified therein. Since, the applicants did not revoke the general Power of Attorney executed in favour of opposite party No. 2 in accordance with those terms, the plea of revocation of general Power of Attorney is an eye wash. In any case, the said opposite party No. 2 has no notice of the cancellation of the general Power of Attorney and, therefore, the sale deed executed by him dated 08.03.1999 would