IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, especially when the allegations do not establish the commission of the alleged offenses and the criminal proceedings are initiated with an oblique motive, constituting an abuse of the process of criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Rawat Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Saurabh Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of Charge Sheet No. 1 of 2022 dated 30.09.2022 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 & 506 I.P.C. submitted in furtherance of F.I.R. No. 440 of 2022, Police Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow, summoning order dated 02.12.2022 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 117643 of 2022, State vs. Ajay Baghel, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.

3. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on record.

4. The learned AGA states that the dispute is between the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant, which is private in nature and as the opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit, the State does not propose to file a separate counter affidavit. With the consent of all the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Court proceeds to decide the application finally.

5. The opposite party no. 2 lodged FIR No. 440 of 2022 on 07.09.2022 alleging that the complainant is the proprietor of a firm ‘M/s Utkarsh Vipul Transport Company’ and is engaged in the business of supply of road and building material through his firm. In April, 2018, the complainant came into contact with the applicant, who projected himself to be the owner of a flat situated in Media Enclave, Sushant Golf City, Police Station Sushant Golf City, Lucknow and told its price to be Rs. 60,00,000/-. The complainant transferred Rs. 93,000/- to the firm of the applicant through IMPS on 28.06.2018. Till May, 2019, the complainant had transferred Rs. 17,00,000/- to the bank account of the applicant. The complainant claims to have paid a further amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash after borrowing the same from some friends. When the complainant demanded documents of the flat on numerous times, the applicant provided a title deed of the flat, which turned out to be fake and the complainant came to know that he had been cheated.

6. The F.I.R. further states that when the complainant again demanded refund of his money, the applicant went to his house, gave him an account payee cheque for Rs. 11,71,373/- and he destroyed the fake title deed which was lying on a table in the complainant’s house. The cheque presented by the complainant was returned by the bank unpaid on 10.07.2022. When the complainant informed this fact to the applicant through his two mobile numbers and demanded his money, the applicant declined to pay money to him and threatened to kill him. The FIR further alleges that the applicant is a habitual offender and a gangster, against whom more than one and a half dozen cases are registered in various police stations.

7. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 30.09.2022 alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 & 506 IPC and the trial court took cognizance of the offences on 02.12.2022 and summoned the applicant to face the trial.

8. It has been stated in the application that there were business relations between the applicant and the complainant and the monetary transactions between the parties were made in relation to their business dealings. No agreement for sale of any flat has been executed by the applicant in favour of the complainant and no money was paid by the complainant to the applicant for purchasing any immovable property.

9. The complainant has stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant is a hardened criminal and has a long criminal history, including a case under the U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He has obtained bail in the present concealing his criminal history. It has also been stated that the defence set up by the applic