Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Prakash Singh, J.
Harish Gulla and Another – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. - 6922 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2024
Fraud - Hi-Tech Township Policy - 406, 419, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471 of IPC - The judgment discusses the Hi-Tech Township Policy, 2003 and subsequent amendments, the dispute between the parties regarding non-transfer of land/plots, the settlement agreements, and the ban imposed by UPRERA on property transfer. The court considered the absence of mens rea, the commercial nature of the dispute, and the willingness of the applicants to perform the settlement terms. The court quashed the summoning orders and criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the non-transfer of land/plots between the parties, the settlement agreements, and the ban imposed by UPRERA on property transfer. The applicants were arrested and a settlement was reached, but subsequent disputes arose regarding the transfer of properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was commercial in nature, the absence of mens rea, and the willingness of the applicants to perform the settlement terms. It concluded that allowing further criminal proceedings would amount to harassment of the applicants.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the non-transfer of land/plots, the settlement agreements, and the ban imposed by UPRERA on property transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the absence of mens rea, the commercial nature of the dispute, and the willingness of the applicants to perform the settlement terms. It also emphasized that civil wrongs cannot always be termed as an offence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the summoning orders and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the case.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri L.P. Mishra assisted by Sri Abhinav Narayan Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pranjal Krishna for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the state.
2. By means of the instant application, prayer has been made for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 05.09.2019 and 10.10.2019, in Case Crime No. 162 of 2018, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow and further the summoning order dated 06.09.2019 and 18.11.2019 has also been assailed.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the UP Government has formulated Hi-Tech Township Policy, 2003 for planned development in the State of UP on 23.08.2003 and after promulgation of the policy, M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., being eligible for undertaking township, applied for and was granted Hi-Tech Township licence on 26.11.2005 and it took shape in the name and style of ‘Sushant Golf City Lucknow’. The Hi-Tech Township Policy, 2003 was amended time to time and other Hi-Tech Township Policy, 2007 was promulgated on 7th September 2007 while superseding the Hi-Tech Township Policy, 2003 and at the same time it was provided that the existing licences, granted earlier vide Policy 2003, shall remain continue. On 27 January 2010, a Government Order was issued whereby the Hi-Tech Township Policies, 2003 and 2007 were brought to an end, though it was provided that Hi-Tech Township Projects shall continue till it’s conclusion and this was informed to the Chairman of various development authorities throughout the State of UP vide Government Order dated 7.04.2021. Having at a glance of the government orders dated 23.08.2003, 17.09.2007 and 7.04.2021, it is apparent that the Government of UP had to facilitate the availability of land to the developers by way of acquisition and payment of compensation and the government land like pathway, land of reserve category, Gaon Sabha land, chakroad, canal, etc. was to be exchanged in favour of the developers and thus, it was incumbent upon the State Government to make procurement of land which was a continuous process and at the same time, it was also provided that State shall take care so as to ensure that no harassment could be caused to the developer and if any complaint is made against the developer, the action may be taken only after approval of High Power Committee, under the chairmanship of the chief secretary of State of UP.
4. Once the Hi-Tech Township Project in the name of Sushant Golf City, Lucknow was allotted to M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructures Ltd., as per the eligibility criterion, the opposite party no. 2 and his wife namely, Mrs Sunita Agarwal expressed their desire for booking several plots, flats and villas etc. both in their individual names and also on behalf of their respective companies, for which 11 MoUs were executed in between 2011 to 2012, vide the same, the plots etc. were sought to be booked with the condition of timely payment, as per schedule.
5. Procurement of land bank was a continuous process, therefore, 11 MoUs could not be performed, within time, in favour of the complainant, his wife or any of the company represented by them. Further there is one hurdle of clause (u) which says that the ‘second party cannot sell/transfer his right in the FSI, either in full or part, to any third-party without the prior written consent of the first party, which the first party at its sole discretion may allow or deny such transfer, and in case the first party allows such transfer then it will charge the administrative charges for the same. The MoU was to be followed by booking of respective flats/villas/plots etc. and resultantly, the allotment letters were issued and followed by execution of sale deeds and due to all these, certain dispute arose between M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and opposite party no. 2 and his wife and therefore, the opposite party no. 2 instituted an
The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases, and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the applicants, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet.
Criminal liability for cheating requires proof of dishonest intent from inception, distinguishing breach of contract from criminal offence.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
The court reaffirmed that mere allegations in civil disputes do not constitute criminal offences unless clear fraudulent intentions exist at the initiation of the transaction.
Offence of Forgery – Quash of order - Court not find any criminal act having been committed during entire process. Only person who could have been aggrieved was seller, who’s statement was recorded b....
FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise....
(1) Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Cognizance of offences – Same person cannot be simultaneously charged for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC with regard to one particul....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
