HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 611 of 2016

08 August, 2025

Rajni Verma ……..Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another

……..Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay,

learned for the applicant.

Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Akshay

Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The present application under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 743 of 2016, as well

as the entire proceedings of the said case.

2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.3 had sold a piece of land measuring 0.09 acre of Khasra No. 658/1, situated at Village Kudkhawala, District Dehradun,

through a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1987 in favour of Smt. Manju Singh, wife of Gyanendra Pal Singh; that, on the basis of the said sale deed, her name was recorded in the revenue records on 26.02.2009; that, thereafter, on 17.01.2014, Smt. Manju Singh executed a registered sale deed of the same land in favour of the applicant, whose name was mutated in the revenue records on 13.05.2014. 3. Learned senior counsel would further submit that respondent no.3, the real uncle of the applicant, bore animosity towards the applicant’s father; that, with a view to harass the family, he lodged an FIR against Smt. Manju Singh, her husband, and members of the applicant’s family, including the father, mother, brother, and sister of the applicant, alleging that an incorrect property had been sold through the sale deed dated 17.01.2014; that, the said FIR was challenged in a criminal writ petition, in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 08.08.2014, stayed further proceedings. During investigation, the police found the allegations against the applicant’s father, mother, brother, and sister to be false and filed the chargesheet only against the applicant, Smt. Manju Singh, and her husband.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant pointed out that while respondent no.3 himself had executed the 1987 sale deed in favour of Smt. Manju Singh and admitted in his written statement in Civil Suit No. 48 of 2015 that the khasra number in that deed was wrongly recorded as 658 instead of 659, he nevertheless lodged a criminal case on the same issue. It was contended that this conduct amounts to blowing hot and cold. He would further submit that the dispute is purely civil in nature, concerning title and description of property, and is already pending before the civil court; that, the criminal proceedings have been initiated solely to pressurize the applicant’s family; that, the applicant is a bona fide purchaser and there is no allegation of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the investigating officer acted in a cursory manner without appreciating the civil nature of the dispute, and that the learned Magistrate mechanically issued summons without due application of mind.

6. Learned senior counsel for the applicant in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, holding that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring judicial application of mind; that, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where quashing was held permissible if allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence; that, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, affirming the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of proce