Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Uma Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 236 of 2018
Decided On : 24-09-2020
For the Appellant :Rajat Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Pratiroop Pandey, AGA and Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the case must be examined to determine if it involves a criminal offense or is purely a civil dispute.
Headnote:
Cheating - Property Dispute - IPC 420 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 420 IPC - The court examined the nature of the case to determine if it was a civil case with an element of criminality or purely a civil case. It concluded that the case was purely civil in nature and had no element of criminality. The proceedings were deemed an abuse of process of law and were quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet, cognizance, and summoning order in a property dispute case. The respondent filed an FIR against the petitioners for cheating under Sections 420, 506 IPC, alleging that the petitioner induced the informant to enter into an agreement for a flat that she did not own or possess. The petitioners argued that it was a breach of contract and not a criminal offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case was purely civil in nature and had no element of criminality. It concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process of law and quashed the charge sheet, cognizance, and summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the case involved a criminal offense of cheating or was purely a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the nature of the case to determine if it was a civil case with an element of criminality or purely a civil case. It concluded that the case was purely civil in nature and had no element of criminality.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the charge sheet, cognizance, summoning order, and entire proceedings of the case were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
1. Petitioners seek quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.03.2017, in Case Crime No. 363 of 2016, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun; cognizance and summoning order dated 10.04.2017, passed in Criminal Case No. 1427 of 2017, State Vs. Smt. Uma Singh and another, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun (for short "the case") as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the record.
3. Facts necessary to resolve this dispute, briefly stated, are as hereunder:-
Respondent no. 2 filed an FIR on 17.10.2016, under Sections 420, 506 IPC against the petitioners. According to it, petitioner no. 1 was allotted one MIG flat under ISBT house planning near Saharanpur-Delhi-Haridwar bye pass road Dehradun (for short "the flat"). Petitioner no. 1 agreed to sell the flat to the informant and an agreement to sale (for short "the agreement) was executed on 22.03.2016. The total consideration agreed was Rs. 34,29,512/-, out of which, Rs. 5 lakh was paid by the informant on the same day. It was agreed between the parties that Rs. 17,89,512/- shall be deposited by the informant with MDDA, Dehradun till 31.03.2016. The informant deposited Rs. 10 lakh, but subsequently, he came to know that the petitioner no. 1 could not have executed the sale deed because she was neither owner nor in possession of the flat. She could not have sold the flat for five years after taking possession because it was allotted to her under horizontal reservation scheme to women reservation. There are other details as well in the FIR. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance taken. That is how the proceedings of the case were instituted. It is the same charge sheet, cognizance order and proceedings of the case which are impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the informant was not cheated by the petitioner no. 1, because the agreement categorically states that some of the consideration amount would be paid by the informant with the MDDA Dehradun and in para no. 4 of the agreement, it is also stated that MDDA would deliver possession after 31.03.2016. According to learned counsel, these averments in the agreement clearly show that both the parties to the agreement were aware that the flat was only allotted in favour of petitioner no. 1 and she was not in possession of the flat. She was not handed over the possession. It is argued that in fact, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondent had to deposit Rs. 17,89,512/- with the MDDA Dehradun, but he did not deposit. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 gave various notices to him to take his money back, but he filed an FIR.
5. With regard to the allegations in the FIR, on behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that the petitioners did not conceal anything about ownership of the flat at the time of agreement, because agreement categorically describes that some amount was to be deposited by the informant with MDDA, which implies that the informant knew that the MDDA is the owner and secondly, the flat was not allotted to the petitioner no. 1 under any horizontal reservation scheme, instead it was on the basis of onetime payment. It is argued that it is a case of pure breach of contract by the informant and there is no element of criminality in it.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that it is a case of clear cut cheating by the petitioner no. 1 because in the agreement in the very first paragraph the petitioner no. 1 had introduced that she is exclusive owner in possession of flat and her name is recorded in the revenue record. It is argued that these averments in the agreement are false. The petitioner no. 1 knew that she was neither owner, nor in possession of the flat and even her name is not recorded anywhere, but still she conc
