Back
2022 Supreme(All) 937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAI TYAGI, J.
Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 Nos. 5158, 9643 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amrish Sahai.
For the Respondents: Aklank Kumar Jain, Bhanu Pratap Dhakray.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the court's process if there is no evidence of mens rea and no specific allegations or material pointing to the accused's involvement in the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. - [Abuse of Process of Law] - [Criminal Conspiracy] - [Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.] - The court quashed the summoning order and the entire proceedings against the accused persons, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, as it found no mens rea on their part and no evidence of their involvement in the alleged offences. The court emphasized that the loan was sanctioned by a different authority and the project was already approved by the bank, absolving the accused of any criminal liability.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating in the sanctioning of a housing loan. The accused, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, were implicated in the case, but they argued that they had no role in the loan sanctioning process and were wrongly summoned by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of mens rea on the part of the accused and no specific allegations or material pointing to their involvement in the alleged offences. It concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the court's process and quashed the summoning order and the entire proceedings against them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, had any criminal liability in the alleged offences of criminal conspiracy and cheating in the sanctioning of a housing loan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the court's process if there was no evidence of mens rea and no specific allegations or material pointing to the accused's involvement in the alleged offences.
Final Decision: The court quashed the summoning order and the entire proceedings against the accused, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, as it found no evidence of their involvement in the alleged offences and no mens rea on their part.
JUDGMENT :
AJAI TYAGI, J.
1. Both these applications required to be decided together.
2. These applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking the quashing of summoning order dated 16.03.2021 and the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 526 of 2020 (Abhishek Singh vs. Prabhjeet Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, and 471 I.P.C. Police Station Sector-49 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. In both the applications, applicants have challenged the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautambudh Nagar, summoning the accused Prabhjeet Singh, Hanshraj Dinkar, Arjun Sharma, Subhashish Chaudhary and Sanjay Gupta for trial for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. after rejecting the final report no. 01 of 2020, filed in pursuance of F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 501 of 2018, which was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the accused persons.
4. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these applications are that a First Information Report was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the accused persons on 12.05.2018 with the averments that opposite party no. 2 and his wife Smt. Laxmi Singh are allottee of Flat No. G 801 Tower-1 situated at plot no. GH-3 Sector 4C, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad. The aforesaid flat was allotted in favour of opposite party no. 2 and his wife by builder M/S VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company’) having its office in New Delhi by letter no. AGB 0302 dated 30.10.2012. The owner of the company, Prabhjeet Singh told the opposite party no. 2 that cost of flat is Rs. 57,27,500/- for which loan shall be sanctioned by Bank of Maharashtra and there would be monthly installment of Rs. 41,000/- per month. It was also assured by Prabhjeet Singh that this project is not disputed, possession of flat shall be delivered within one year and he took over the responsibility for getting the loan sanctioned by the Bank of Maharashtra, Sector 51, Noida, which has approved his project.
5. Believing the statements made by Prabhjeet Singh, opposite party no. 2 agreed and aforesaid plot was allotted to him on 30.10.2012. After that on this flat, bank sanctioned the loan of Rs. 40 lacs on 22.12.2012 out of which Rs. 38,10,000/- was transferred into the bank account of company by the bank vide draft no. 678255 dated 10.01.2013. Opposite party no. 2 had paid Rs. 18 lacs as margin money and started paying the monthly installment of Rs. 41,000/-. On 19.01.2018 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad tookover the possession of building and sealed it, which was being constructed by Prabhjeet Singh, owner of the company, in which flat of opposite party no. 2 was also situated. On 03.02.2018 when opposite party no. 2 enquired, the fact came in the knowledge of opposite party no. 2 that building which was being constructed by Prabhjeet Singh, was in dispute before allotment of flat.
6. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad was undertaking the proceedings of recovery of dues against Prabhjeet Singh, owner of the company, hence, directors of the company have cheated the opposite party no. 2 in criminal conspiracy with the Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra. They have cheated the opposite party no. 2 for Rs. 66,21,000/- by way of fraud, forged documents and forged legal report. It was doubted that directors of the company in connivance with bank officers have cheated him and his wife by fabricating forged documents such as legal search report, no dues certificate etc.
7. After investigation, I.O. has submitted the final report alleging that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and no criminal liability is made out. Opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition against the final report and learned Magistrate after hearing the parties, rejected the final report and summoned the accused
