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.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, the learned counsel for the applicants in Application u/S 482 No.4460 of 2022, Shri Nadeem Murtaza, the learned counsel for the applicant in Application U/s 482 No.3270 of 2022, Shri G.D. Bhatt, the learned AGA-I for the State- opposite party No.1 in both the applications and Shri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 in both the applications.

2. Both the present applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed challenging the validity of an order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Court No.29, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.3649 of 2021, summoning the applicants to face trial for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

3. The opposite party no. 2 – Rakeshwar Dayal Saxena, had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against- (i) Rajat Saxena (applicant No.1 in Application u/S 482 No.4460 of 2022), (ii) Anil Saxena (applicant No.2 in Application u/S 482 No.4460 of 2022) and (iii) Anshul Srivastava, the then Manager (Senior) HDFC Ltd. (the applicant in Application u/S 482 No.3270 of 2022) stating that Rajat Saxena is son of Rakeshwar Dayal Saxena and Anil Saxena is father-in-law of Rajat Saxena. There was a house purchased in the name of Rajat Saxena and her mother Raj Laxmi Saxena. The owners of the house Rajat Saxena and Raj Laxmi Saxena had taken a housing loan of Rs.17 lakhs from HDFC Ltd., Ashok Marg, Lucknow and thereafter they had taken a personal loan of Rs.12 lakhs. The house in question was mortgaged as security for repayment of the aforesaid loans. Smt. Raj Laxmi Saxena died on 04.11.2013. Thereafter, the complainant- Rakeshwar Dayal Saxena married another lady who is living with him as his wife. Rajat Saxena works abroad. From the averments made in the application, it appears that the relation between Rajat Saxena and Rakeshwar Dayal Saxena have turned sour.

4. The opposite party no. 2 claims that since June 2014, he has continuously paid the installments towards repayment of the loan taken by his wife and son. Thereafter, under a conspiracy between all the accused persons, the Bank Manager Anshul Srivastava declined to receive the installments toward repayment of the loans and he obtained a writing from the complainant that the complainant would not pay the installments towards repayment of the loan taken by his wife and son. Thereafter, the Bank declared the loans as non-performing assets and published a notice for auction of the house. The complainant filed S.A. No.319 of 2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and he expressed willingness to deposit the entire dues of the Bank amounting to Rs.45,95,000/-, provided the Bank executes a sale deed in his favour under a private treaty.

5. It is further stated in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that in compliance of an order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow the Bank Manager Anshul Srivastava received Rs.45,95,000/- from the complainant and gave a No Dues Certificate on 29.01.2019 but under a conspiracy, he handed over the title deed of the house to Rajat Saxena. The complainant has stated that he has opened the locks of the house on 03.12.2019 and has started residing in it. He has stated that the accused persons have cheated him and are trying to usurp the house. 6. On 08.04.2022, the trial Court passed the impugned order summoning the applicants to face the trial.

7. The opposite party No.2 has filed a counter affidavit opposing the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the applicants have filed a rejoinder affidavit.

8. On 18.12.2018, the DRT, Lucknow had passed the following order in S.A. No.391 of