Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 689
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Sudhir Kumar Gupta - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand through Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 628 of 2013
Decided On : August 07, 2013
Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal with Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocates, present for the applicant
Mr. P.S. Soun, learned AGA, with Ms. Shiwali Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 & 2
Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arvind Vashisth and Mr. H.C. Pathak, Advocates, present for the respondent no. 3
The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash proceedings should be used sparingly and with caution. If the allegations prima facie establish the offence and there is no abuse of process of the court, the proceedings should not be quashed.
Headnote:
quashing of proceedings - Criminal - IPC Sections 420, 406, 506, 468 - The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings of a criminal case against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, and 468 IPC. The complainant alleged that the accused persons entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land, but later sold it to a third party without the right to do so. The accused persons also failed to execute the sale deed as per the settlement deed.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings of a criminal case against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, and 468 IPC. The complainant alleged that the accused persons entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land, but later sold it to a third party without the right to do so. The accused persons also failed to execute the sale deed as per the settlement deed. The applicant sought to quash the FIR on the grounds that the dispute was civil in nature and the FIR was filed with ulterior motive. The respondent argued that the accused persons had fraudulent and dishonest intentions from the beginning. The Supreme Court has laid down principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and held that the allegations prima facie establish the offence and the case should proceed to trial. The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. but allowed the accused-applicant to surrender and apply for bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986 and Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 to determine the veracity of the prayer for quashing the proceedings. The Court found that the allegations prima facie established the offence and there was no abuse of process of the court. The Court also emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be used sparingly and with caution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that if the allegations prima facie establish the offence and there is no abuse of process of the court, the proceedings should not be quashed. The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be used sparingly and with caution.
Result: The application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was dismissed. The accused-applicant was allowed to surrender and apply for bail.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., was filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 242 / 2003, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, arising out of case crime no. 177 / 2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 I.P.C. It is also prayed that the cognizance order, as also the charge sheet submitted thereof be also quashed. Informant-respondent no. 3 filed an F.I.R. against the accused persons including the applicant on 7.10.2012 in P.S. Bahadrabad, Haridwar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 177/12, under Sections 420, and 506 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 IPC. Cognizance on the same was taken by learned Magistrate on 02.04.2013. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant.
2. Taking recourse to Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., respondent no. 3 lodged a complaint against the accused persons, including the applicant in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. It was said that the respondent no. 3 and the accused persons, including the applicant, entered into an agreement on 02.11.2004 in respect of a chunk of land, situated at Hari Parwat Merry Land, Haridwar. It was agreed on 02.11.2004 that the same will be got registered on 25.12.2004. Respondent no. 3 gave a payment of rupees 50,00,000/- to the accused persons at the time of agreement. A sum of rupees one crore twenty five lacs was also given by the respondent no. 3 to the accused persons through bank draft and cash on subsequent dates, before the date of registry. In all, a sum of rupees one crore seventy five lacs was given by the respondent no. 3 to the accused persons. Respondent no. 3, thereafter, came to know that the accused persons were not the owners of the land in respect of which they entered into an agreement with respondent no. 3. A part of the said land belonged to someone else. The accused persons had no right to sell the said land. The accused persons continued to postpone the registry on one pretext or another. No sale deed was executed despite several requests made by the respondent no. 3 in this behalf. Accused persons, knowing it fully well that they have entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent no. 3, sold the land to the third person, whereas they had no right to do so. They concealed and suppressed the material facts. When respondent no. 3 made a complaint to them, then a settlement deed was executed between the respondent no. 3 and the applicant on 13.05.2010. It was agreed between the parties that the applicant will pay rupees three crores fifty lacs to the respondent no. 3 within six months, failing which the respondent no. 3 will pay rupees fifty lacs to the applicant and get the sale deed executed in his favour within one month after the expiry of six months. The respondent no. 3 remained present before Sub- Registrar, Haridwar on 13-12-2010 along with money (Rupees Fifty Lacs) but the accused applicant did not come to the Sub- Registrar s office. Had respondent no. 3 come to know of evil design in the minds of the accused persons, he would not have paid rupees one crore seventy five lacs to the accused persons, who committed fraud with the respondent no. 3. Neither did they execute sale-deed, nor paid rupees three crore fifty lacs as per settlement deed. The respondent no. 3 again made a complaint to the applicant on 19.06.2012 at 4.00 PM, on which, the accused-applicant got annoyed and threatened him with dire consequences. A complaint was given to S.O., Kotwali Haridwar on 20.06.2012, but no action was taken on the same. Respondent no. 3 made a complaint to S.S.P. Haridwar on 29.06.2012, but still no action was taken a
