Reserved on 06.12.2022

Delivered on 22.12.2022

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40165 of 2011

Applicant :- Braj Pal

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Divakar Rai Sharma

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1.

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year

2011 and it has now finally decided by this judgment after more than a

decade. Applicant has challenged a charge sheet filed against him and co-

accused under Sections 420, 386, 109, 504, 506 IPC as well as entire

proceedings of Criminal Case No. 309/9 of 2011 (State of U.P. vs. Yogendra

Kumar and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 1678 of 2010, Police

Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar.

2.

Applicant’s case before this Court is based on document that he is a

marginal witness to a second registered agreement to sell between

complainant and co-accused in continuation of their first registered

agreement to sell of property owned by complainant. Out of sale

consideration of Rs. 3 lacs, co-accused has paid Rs. 2.6 lacs. When

complainant has not executed sale deed, a notice was issued by co-accused

which was replied by complainant and thereafter co-accused has filed a suit

for specific performance against complainant which appears to be still

pending.

3.

Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicant, has placed reliance on a

judgment passed by Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of

Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 that, Supreme Court has time and

again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to

give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and

purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or

out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment.

2

Supreme Court further states that criminal Courts should ensure that

proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties

to settle civil disputes, but at the same, it should be noted that several

disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal

offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they

also amount to civil disputes.

4.

Learned counsel further submitted that dispute with regard to

agreement to sell is already before Civil Court and only in order to put

pressure on applicant and co-accused, complainant lodged FIR on basis of

an absolutely different story. Offence, if any, would be against the vendee,

i.e., co-accused and not against applicant, a marginal witness to the second

registered agreement to sell.

5.

Learned counsel also placed reliance on Supreme Court’s judgment in

Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC

1634 that, if a bare perusal of complaint on the basis of which FIR came to

register at the instance of complainant, does not disclose any act of applicant

or his participation in commission of crime, the criminal proceedings against

him can be quashed in the light of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992

Supp.(1) 335.

6.

Learned counsel for applicant also placed reliance on few paragraphs

of Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishna Lal Chawla and others vs. State of

U.P. and another (2021) 5 SCC 435 under the heading “Rule of the lower

judiciary in preventive abuse of court process” and relevant para 23 is

reproduced as under:

“23.

As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an

important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of

defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the

harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion

that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal

or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty

to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the

3

s