A Magistrate must conduct a proper inquiry before summoning an accused, ensuring there is prima facie evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint to prevent misuse of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the orders dated 19.02.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, on the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 and order date 30.08.2017 passed by he Additional Session Judge, Court No.14 Meerut in Revision No.66 of 2014, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.236 of 2012 (Rashid Vs. Saleem and others) under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of IPC Police Station Saroorpur District Meerut, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that Late Rafik (father of applicant no.2 to 4 and husband of applicant no.5) was owner of land in dispute. The agriculture Patta was allotted to him in the year 1975 over the land and during consolidation proceedings, he was declared owner with transferable right vide order dated 21.07.2005 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Meerut. On 26.09.2006 the father of applicants executed the sale deed in favour of complainant. It is further argued that at that time the complainant had not moved any application for mutation and after about six years he had filed the complaint against the applicants. On his complaint, the learned court concerned has summoned the applicants. It is further argued that applicant nos. 1 to 5 have no concerned with the sale deed as neither they are executor nor beneficiary. It is next argued that the applicant nos. 6 & 7 are only marginal witnesses of sale deed. It is a purely civil dispute which has been given criminal colour. It is further argued that in absence of any finding recorded by the court concerned, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint, the statements recorded under Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. no prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the court concerned for summoning the applicants under section 420, 504, 506 IPC.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the aforesaid argument with the contention that it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that possession over the property has not been given till date.

5. It reveals from the perusal of the record that initially an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant (herein opposite party no.2), the same has been treated as complaint case and thereafter the statement of the complainant and the witnesses have been recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.02.2013 summoned the present applicants under Sections-420, 504 & 506 IPC It is also evident from the record that the criminal revision filed against the impugned summoning order before the Additional Session Judge Court No.14, Meerut but the same has been rejected due to non-presence of the applicants/revisionists.

6. It transpires from the record that the sale deed, which is the base of the complaint, was executed by the father of the applicants no.1 to 3 and husband of applicant no.4. There father was the sole vendor of the sale deed. It is also evident from the record that at the time of execution of sale deed, the father of applicants no.2 to 4 (Rafik) was Bhumidhar with transferable rights by the order of Consolidation Officer, Sardhana dated 21.07.2005 passed in Suit No.610 of but later on his name was expunged on some complaint after his death. Thereafter, the complaint against the present applicants has been filed by the opposite part