The court emphasized that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly and circumspectly exercised, and only in the rarest of rare cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicant being accused has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 13.01.2022, filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.4.2023 (both Annexure No.6) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar and the proceedings arising in Case Crime No.0718 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

2. The above F.I.R. (Annexre No.1) was registered on the basis of complaint given by Smt. Rekha Sharma, wherein it is alleged that she is the resident of Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar and accused persons, namely, Ramnarain @ Ramnarainpur son of Indal, Chandrabhan Singh, son of Gopal Singh, who are engaged in the business of property dealing, in connivance with each other had sold 0.134 hect. land comprised in gata nos.701, 702, 723, 736 through sale deed dated 03.06.2017 executed in favour of Jaiprakash Mishra, wherein accused Chandrabhan Singh is the witness to the sale deed. As per allegations, Chandrabhan Singh in a fictitious way got the sale deed of the land executed in favour of the complainant. On these broad allegations, the F.I.R. was registered for alleged commission of offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

3. After registration of the case, the investigation in subject F.I.R. was carried out and upon completion of the same the impugned charge sheet dated 13.01.2022 was submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereupon vide order dated 20.04.2023 cognizance order was passed. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the case of the prosecution is not maintainable against Chandrabhan Singh, the applicant, who is not involved in execution of the sale deed dated 22.11.2018, which was executed by accused Ramnarain in favour of complainant-Reeta Sharma. He submits that neither the applicant is the beneficiary of this transaction in any manner nor he signed the instrument as witness. He submits that the land, if any, which is subject matter of the case was owned by Ramnarain and both the sale deeds were executed by him, whereas the applicant was only a witness to the first sale deed executed on 03.06.2017, which has never been questioned in any manner, much less by the complainant or the vendee-Jai Prakash.

5. Learned counsel has further argued that prior to the execution of the sale deed dated 22.11.2018, the vendor had executed an agreement to sell dated 13.11.2018, wherein the agreed sale consideration was fixed as Rs.3.75 lacs, and that too with Santosh Kumar Sharma, husband of the complainant, so, learned counsel while drawing attention of the Court to the agreement to sell dated 13.11.2018 has argued that the contents of this document are not part of the F.I.R., therefore, case of the applicant is distinguishable from the other co-accused. He submits that on these grounds, the interference of this Court is warranted by exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as his prosecution is nothing, but an abuse of process of law.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submission this Court finds that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the documentary evidence and though the charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, but the same is yet to be considered by the trial court, as concededly, the charges have not been framed against the accused persons.

7. In Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. reported as 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under :

"13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. s