Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Teluram – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2042 of 2022
Decided On : 24-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anshu Kumar
For the Respondents: V.S. Pal, Deep Chandra Joshi
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings based on sufficient evidence of fraudulent land sales, rejecting claims of civil nature and lack of intent.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 - Criminal proceedings challenged under C482 application - Allegations of civil nature and lack of intent to cheat were argued - Sufficient material against the applicant established through investigation - Charge-sheet filed after thorough inquiry - Proceedings not quashed as they are meritorious. (Paras 1-14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the proceedings of a criminal case for multiple IPC offences, asserting innocence and claiming the allegations were civil in nature.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence against the applicant, indicating repeated fraudulent sale of land without ownership.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the charges and the applicant's intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence collected warranted continuation of the proceedings, emphasizing that all arguments could be addressed during trial.
Result: C482 application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
1. The present C482 application has been moved by the present applicant challenging the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2017, wherein, the present applicant has been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC, which is pending in the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. The First Information Report was lodged by one Shravan Kumar on 15.07.2017 at P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar bearing Case Crime No. 250 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 120 B of IPC against the present applicant in which after investigation the final report was filed, which was rejected by the Trial Court and directed for further investigation and thereafter after further investigation the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.
3. In the said charge-sheet the Trial Court took cognizance on 26.08.2022 and thereafter the applicant has been summoned and now being aggrieved with the said proceeding the present C482 application has been moved.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and the allegations are of civil nature and there are no ingredients which constitute the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC. He has no intention to cheat the complainant and the investigation was done in a very casual manner and without collecting any material evidence the charge-sheet was filed.
5. In paragraph-2 the reference of certain lands have been given and in paragraph-4 it is contended that the father of respondent no. 4 was the owner of the property in Khata No. 725 Khasra No. 1581/2 measuring 310 square meter and Khasra No. 1582/2 measuring 30 square meter and the father of respondent no. 4 executed one power of attorney in favour of Inderjeet and sold the area of the property measuring 2631 square feet to one Ranjana W/o Mahavir Prasad on 29.03.1993 and some other sale deeds were also executed from Khasra No. 1582/2 and 1581 to other person. He submits that respondent no. 4 without any right and title over the property in Khasra No. 1581/2 and 1582/2 by showing himself as the power of attorney holder in the property executed sale deed on 20.11.2014 to respondent no. 5 and there is nothing but it is a dispute with regard to the boundary.
6. He also submits that the suit for permanent injunction was also filed by the present applicant bearing O.S. No. 342 of 2022, in which the respondent/complainant are the defendants and the matter is subjudice. He also submits that the applicant has no transaction of any kind with respondent nos. 4 to 6 directly or indirectly and the proceedings as initiated against him is an abuse of process of law and submits that the proceedings be quashed.
7. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi submits that on the first information report, which was lodged by the respondent/complainant on 15.07.2017 the matter was also enquired by the revenue officials as well as S.I.T. All these reports are placed on record in the counter affidavit.
8. I perused all the three reports and from these reports it reveals that the present applicant executed several sale deeds to several persons without having any title and right over the land.
9. Learned A.G.A. Mr. V.S. Pal, who appears for the respondent-Investigating Agency also submits that the present applicant is habitual to execute the sale deed to several persons without having any ownership and title, which is evident from the report of the revenue officials as well as S.I.T. report. Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit is a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and I also peruse the same.
10. Apart from this, as per this report, which was submitted by the Revenue Inspector it reveals that the present applicant sold the same land repeatedly to other pe
