Smt. Rachana Yadav v. Ramesh Chandra, under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151267 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29130 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virpratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............." In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the summoning order and the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 28.02.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.9.2024 DS
Arguments
Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Virpratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order dated 28.02.2024 and proceedings of Complaint No. 3910 of 2021, Smt. Rachana Yadav v. Ramesh Chandra, under Sections 420, 506 IPC, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed on 28.07.2021 with the allegation that the applicant agreed to sell Plot No. 91, Mauza Baghaura, Mohalla Naya Patelnagar, Orai, measuring 167.22 sq.mtrs, for a sale consideration of Rs. 15 lakh. The applicant received Rs. 3,50,000/- through cheque no. 020979 issued from HDFC Bank, Branch Orai dated 25.02.2013 and Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash on 25.02.2013, another amount of Rs. 5 lakh was also received in cash on 14.04.2014 and Rs. 2 Lakh in cash was received on 20.02.2015. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- cash was received on 31.07.2016 i.e. by 31.07.2016 total amount of Rs. 14,50,000/- was received with the promise to get a sale deed executed on 10.08.2016. Stamp of Rs. 2,44,400/- was purchased by opposite party no. 2 at the instance of the applicant on 08.08.2016. The applicant along with opposite party no. 2 and her husband Anil Yadav, witnesses Tularam and Rajjan, went to the registry office Orai. One Pratap Singh, Advocate prepared the format of sale deed at the request of the applicant. The aforesaid was typed on the stamp as purchased by opposite party no. 2 after signatures when the applicant was asked to give original aadhaar card and PAN card, he took an excuse that the same has been left at home, he went to bring the same but did not return and even switched off his mobile phone. The opposite party no. 2 along with other persons came back when after waiting a long period the applicant did not return with aadhaar and PAN cards to get the sale deed executed as promised. After about 15 days there was conversation between the applicant and husband of opposite party no. 2, wherein the applicant informed that due to some personal difficulty he could not execute the sale deed on the said date, but promised to get the same executed. However, the sale deed was not executed as he took some other excuses and requested the opposite party no. 2 not to take any legal action for the aforesaid purpose. Thus, it has been further alleged in this manner the applicant has cheated opposite party no. 2 taking Rs. 14,50,000/- with the promise to execute the sale deed, but the same has not been executed. After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The opposite party no. 2 had an eye upon the property of the applicant, which her husband forcibly tried to purchase the same. On 17.12.2020 an application was moved before the police authority, copy of which is placed at Page-58 of the petition. When the police authorities did not take any action, a complaint was filed by the applicant, in which husband of opposite party no. 2 has been summoned by order dated 12.05.2023, therefore, the fact is proved that the opposite party no. 2 somehow wanted to create nuisance against the applicant. He further submits that nothing has been placed on record to show that amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid to the applicant by opposite party no. 2. He further submits that some oral agreement was entered into between the parties for purchase of the aforesaid land, hence the present case is nothing but a way to give criminal colour to the civil proceedings as in case their sale deed was not executed, the suit for specific performance should have been filed by opposite party no. 2. The court concerned while passing the summoning order has also not detailed about any agreement which is vehemently denied by learned counsel for the applicant that no agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and it was only an oral understanding between the parties, for which proper suit should have been filed for execution of the sale deed. Placing the statement of account of applicant-Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no amount has been received in his account which is only in State Bank of India and no other account is maintained by the applicant, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the applicant, are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen at this stage. Even otherwise, earlier to case filed by the applicant shows that with the intention to cheat and in order to exert pressure, a subsequent complaint has been filed by him to grab money as received by him and also not to give possession of the plot in question to opposite party no. 2. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. As there is no agreement in writing between the parties, therefore, offence under relevant sections is made out and the dispute is not of a civil nature as money has been taken under the garb of execution of sale deed without there being any document in writing to prove the aforesaid. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-