Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.
Shailendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.5947 of 2023
Decided on : 14-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ramanand Gupta, Harshit Gupta

Point of Law : Allegations made in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against applicant, which has been rightly upheld by learned revisional Court.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 156(3) , 82 , 200 , 202 and 482 - Application - Filed for quashing Judgement and order - Complainant had very good relations with applicant and he disclosed him that he works in company in name and style, which provides plot on a very low prices - Further he offered him a plot measuring 20 x 70 yards Trusting on the proposal/offer given by applicant, complainant made his first payment through Cheque no. Central Bank, , in favour Mines and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Bank Jail Road, (M.P.) towards his purchase of land and applicant gave a receipt bearing serial no. 901 dated to complainant on behalf of the company - It is further alleged that after some time applicant again demanded out of remaining amount and complainant issued another cheque bearing cheque no. Of amount -in favour of company - Similarly, complainant invested in said project - For one year several times complainant contacted applicant on phone for execution of the sale-deed and he was assured by applicant that work is in progress and registry of land will be done as soon as possible -Neither the applicant replied to notice nor returned money and there was no contact with the applicant nor was it known - Whether the applicant was only an employee of the company or its owner or one of its partner have not been brought on record - Court comes on the issue of any cheating, fraud, deception, dishonesty being committed by the applicant in committing cheating upon the complainant by taking Rs. 4 lacs in the garb of purchase of a land. [Para 16]
Finding of Court : Court finds that submissions made by applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case - Court does not deem it proper, and cannot be persuaded to have a pretrial before actual trial begins - Court do not find any justification to quash orders impugned passed against applicant as the case does not fall in any of categories recognized by Apex Court which may justify their quashing - All judgments relied upon by learned counsel for applicants referred to above are clearly distinguishable in facts of present case - On examination of both the impugned orders, Court finds that both courts below while passing impugned orders have recorded categorical finding of fact that prima facie case for the alleged Sections is made out against applicant -In view of deliberations and discussions made above, Court finds that allegations made in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on basis whereof summoning order has been passed against applicant, which has been rightly upheld by learned revisional Court and thus the impugned orders do not call for any interference by Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.
Result : Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. From the perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the revisional court enclosed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the present application, it is apparent that the said order has been passed on 16th January, 2023 but inadvertently, in the prayer clause of this application it has wrongly been transcribed as “16th January, 2022” in place of 16th January, 2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Judgement and order dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lalitpur, whereby Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2022 (Shailendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) filed by the revisionist has been rejected upholding the summoning order dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur passed in Complaint Case No. 3983 of 2018 (Sandeep Awasthi Vs. Shailendra Singh Bundela) under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Taalbehat, District Lalitpur. The applicant has further prayed for stay of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

4. The crux of the allegations made in the complaint is that opposite party no.2 had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur stating therein that the complainant had very good relations with the applicant and he disclosed him that he works in the company in the name and style of “Shubhalaya Greens 303 R.K. Towar, M.P. in Bhopal”, which provides plot on a very low prices. Further he offered him a plot measuring 20 x 70 yards in Bhaurikal, Madhya Pradesh at 5,25,000/-. Trusting on the proposal/offer given by the applicant, the complainant made his first payment of Rs. 50,000/-through Cheque no. 001669 Central Bank, Taalbehat, Lalitpur on 01.05.2015 in favour of Shubhalay Mines and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Bank Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.) (hereinafter referred as the 'company of opposite party no.2”) towards his purchase of the land and applicant gave a receipt bearing serial no. 901 dated 01.05.2015 to the complainant on behalf of the company. It is further alleged that after some time applicant again demanded Rs. 3,50,000/-out of remaining amount and complainant issued another cheque bearing cheque no. 891084 dated 12.05.2015 of amount 3,50,000/-in favour of company. Similarly, complainant invested Rs. 4,00,000/-in the said project. For one year several times the complainant contacted the applicant on the phone for execution of the sale-deed and he was assured by the applicant that work is in progress and the registry of the land will be done as soon as possible. Your plot has been booked. Later on the complainant came to know that the applicant/opposite party had taken money from several persons by cheating and promising them to give a plot, after which several calls were made by the complainant but the applicant/opposite party did not respond. Attaching the receipt and other documents, the applicant made an application before the Chairman, RERA Bhavan at Bhopal and the Chairman said that no transaction has been done by the applicant Shailendra Singh. Under the criminal conspiracy, the opposite party has taken money by luring many persons and did not return the money to anyone and a new firm Shrimant Vinayak Infrastructure has been formed by the applicant/opposite party under the guise of that company, the applicant/opposite party is doing similar work. On 01.06.2018, the complainant went to residence of opposite party and talked about his plot after being very upset and when he asked for his money back, the applicant behaved indecently, abused him, talked about usurping the money and threatened to kill him. After that, the complainant also sent a legal notice to the applicant/opposite party through an Advocate. Neither the applicant replied to the notice nor returned the money and there was no