Point of Law:
While executing the sale deed, the appellant herein did not make any false or misleading representation. There had also not been any dishonest act of inducement on his part to do or omit to do anything which he could not have done or omitted to have done if he were not so deceived. Admittedly, the matter is pending before a competent civil court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, the matter riped up for final arguments.

3. The matter was heard at length and order was reserved to be dictated in Chamber.

4. Considering learned arguments of the rival parties, it is imperative to extract bare skeletonized facts of the case for proper appraisal and adjudication in the matter.

5. The prayer sought by the applicants is for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3302 of 2015 (State v. Radhey Shyam Gupta and others) under sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that by virtue of Court’s order dated 22.01.2016 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, further proceedings of the instant case were stayed and notices were issued to opposite party no. 2.

FACTS OF THE CASE

7. One Munni Devi resident of Kolkata is lease holder of plot no. 1342, Block –W-II, Phase Juhi Kala, Damodar Nagar, Kanpur Nagar admeasuring are 387 Square yards (herein after referred to as ‘dispute land’). This disputed plot was a lease hold property of Kanpur Development Authority vide lease deed dated 18.01.1978 for a period of 99 years, as she as resident of Kolkata, due to some financial crunch, she had to enter into an agreement to sell the dispute property on 27.10.2010 with one Ms. Mamta Gupta (Applicant no. 2). The covenants of the aforesaid agreements to sell stood as under:

(a) Total amount of sale consideration is 25 lakhs, out of which she acknowledged that she received five post dated cheques of different dates for an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs (the detail of the aforesaid cheques were quoted on the foot of the instrument.

(b) Ms. Munni Devi assured that she would get the disputed land freehold within a period of one year and get the sale-deed registered.

(c) The possession of the disputed land has not been handed over till the land is not declared as free hold and would be handed over on the date of the registration of the sale-deed.

8. In paragraph 5 of the petition, it has been alleged by the deponent, Ms. Mamta Gupta that on the same date yet another agreement to sell was executed by way of Joint Notarized Affidavit (Annexure no.3), signed by contesting parties, namely Munni Devi and Mamta Gupta (Applicant no. 2), whereby the terms of the deed were changed upside down and instead agreed sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs, it was mentioned therein that the total consideration of Rs. 35 Lakhs, out of which Munni Devi has received Rs. 25 Lakhs and only 10 Lakhs were left to be paid by applicant no. 2. Not only this, the original lessee, Ms. Munni Devi has handed over the actual physical possession of the disputed property to Mamta Gupta (Applicant No. 2). It was also agreed upon that Munni Devi would get the land in question free hold within a period of one year and get the “sell deed” registered.

9. Perusal of the record reveals that after receiving the actual physical possession, applicant no. 2, Ms. Mamta Gupta has raised two pucca rooms as well as the address. In support of this, the bill of electricity department for the month of July/August, 2015 is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the petition.

10. Since Munni Devi failed to get land freehold for her requisite inaction and on account of providence whereby the husband of Mamta Gupta went in renal failure, resultantly, she in acute financial duress, she could not file the suit for Specific Performance for executing the actual sale-deed through decree of court.

11. Since the prices of the land were accelerating sky high, Munni Devi has filed a suit against Mamta Gupta (Applicant No. -2) bearing Original Suit No. 1553 of 2015 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Divi