HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.124 of 2022

Yogendra Kumar & others ......Petitioners

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & another …..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the private respondent.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J (Oral).

The challenge in this petition is made to the

charge-sheet

dated

14.10.2017,

cognizance

and

summoning order dated 11.01.2018, passed in Case

No.806/2018, State vs. Yogendra Kumar & others, under

Sections 406, 420 IPC, by the court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Haridwar (“the Case”).

2.

Facts necessary to appreciate the controvery,

briefly stated, are as follows:-

Respondent no.2 Surendra Kumar (“the

informant”) filed an FIR on 27.07.2017 against the

petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471

IPC. According to it, the petitioners sold two plots

bearing nos.85 and 86 to the son of the informant

on misrepresentation by showing a map of

residential colony. The permission under Section

143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and

2

Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“the Act”) had already

been withdrawn on 09.08.2010. The petitioners

took Rs.9,86,000/- by cheating. It is this FIR, in

which, after investigation charge-sheet has been

submitted and cognizance taken.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out,

because the petitioners have never made any statement in

the FIR that any declaration under Section 143 of the Act

had been obtained.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the

following points in his submissions;

(i)

The title is not in dispute;

(ii) The informant and his son, who are the

purchaser had not revealed it to the

Investigating Officer that the petitioners,

at any point of time told it to them that

declaration under Section 143 of the Act

had already been taken.

3

(iii) In the sale deed, a Government Order No.

175/18(1) 2007 is referred to, which

relates to the agricultural land. The

declaration under Section 143 of the Act is

required, when the agricultural land is

being used for the purposes not connected

with agriculture, horticulture and animal

husbandry.

(iv) The order regarding demolition of the

colony

dated

22.08.2016

issued

by

Haridwar

Development

Authority

(“the

Authority”) which is Annexure-1 to the

counter affidavit, does not relate to the

petitioners.

(v) The order dated 23.11.2017 of the Authority

reveals that the petitioners intervened in

the matter regarding their ownership.

(vi)

The

petitioners

did

not

make

any

concealment of fact.

(vi) The petitioners did not construct any

house. They simply sold the land.

4

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

private respondent would submit that the petitioners were

developing a colony. At the time of registration of the sale

deed, the informant was assured that the land is for the

residential purposes. The declaration under Section 143

of the Act had already been withdrawn. This fact was

within the knowledge of the petitioners, but they concealed

this fact and thereby dishonestly induced the informant to

purchase the property. The Authority, subsequently,

ordered for demolition of the colony.

7.

Learned counsel has referred to the provisions

of Section 415 IPC to argue that the explanation appended

to Section 415 IPC is squarely attracted in this matter. It

is a case of concealment of the fact. No interference is

warranted in the matter.

8.

Arguments from both the sides have been raised

relating to applicability/non applicability of Section 415

IPC. It is as hereunder:-

“415. Cheating—Whoever, by deceiving any person,

fr