The court ruled that allegations of cheating and forgery must be addressed in criminal proceedings, and a prima facie case exists against the applicants, preventing quashing of the complaint.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C . has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 01.04.2024, of Complaint Case No. 869 of 2023 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. Shanti Devi and Others), under Sections - 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Rasra, District - Ballia, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rasra, Ballia

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. The opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint making false and baseless allegations. It was stated that regarding disputed property, two declaratory suits are pending before the court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate and in those cases it is yet to be decided that who is owner of the disputed property. It is further submitted that in the complaint, the opposite party no.2 has alleged that applicants have got executed sale deed by way of impersonation showing the same to be executed by Achchey Lal but in his statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C ., the complainant has stated that the said sale deed was got executed by some another person in place of complainant as vendor and there are material contradictions in the version of complainant. Learned counsel has referred case of Delhi Race Club Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 689 and submitted that no case is made out against applicants and dispute between the parties is civil in nature and thus, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2013 1 CCR (SC) 148 , Dr. Sonia Verma Vs. State of Haryana 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 252 and R. Nagendra Yadav Vs. The State of Telangana and Anr. 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1250 .

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the owner of the property was Achchey Lal, who has died on 06.10.2006. After that in the year 2008 a permission was sought from District Magistrate by way of cheating and forgery on behalf of Achchey Lal and after obtaining said permission, sale deed was executed in favour of applicants by impersonating some one as Achchey Lal, whereas he has already died in the year 2006. It was submitted that the allegations of cheating and forgery are involved and that issue can never be decided in declaratory suits, which are pending before the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In case of Delhi Race Club (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-

"29. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the con