High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148189 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29460 of 2024 Applicant :- Farooq Khan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Mr. Aman Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A for State. 2. I find merit in the arguments of learned counsel for applicants that after considering the entire allegation specifically in regard to non-performance of an agreement to sale does not fall within the 4 corners of offence under Section 406 I.P.C.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for applicants, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on a judgement passed by Supreme Court in case of Radheyshyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3020 of 2024 (@ Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No. 13675 of 2023) and relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinafter:- "11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the following ingredients must exist: i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;
Decision
ii. the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; and iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust. 12. In the present case, the appellants were not entrusted with any property by respondent no.2- complainant. The only delivery made was of part payment towards an Agreement to Sell between the parties. The amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted with the appellants by respondent no. 2. Additionally, merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount of misappropriation of the advance payment. Since there was no entrustment of property, the offence of misappropriation of such property and thereby criminal breach of trust cannot be said to be made out." 4. Learned counsel submits that other allegation in regard to offence under Sections 406, 452, 504, 506, 323 and 427 I.P.C. could also not be made out since it was raised only to give criminal color to a dispute which is essentially of a civil in nature. 5. I have considered the above submissions in the light of Radheshyam & Ors. (Supra) as well as contents of the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. For reference the impugned order is also reproduced hereinafter:- "नययययलयय- नययययक मजजसटट टट पथम, बरटलल। पररवयद सस०-1794/2022 थयनय-कक नट, जजलयय-बरटलल 1. इलययस खयस पपत शल अफसर खयस यनवयसल यठररयय यनजयवत खयस, कक नट बरटलल। ............................................................. पररवयदल। बनयम 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. फयरख खयस पपत उसमयन खयस इमरयन पपत उसमयन खयस हहसकन खयस पपत ममहममद वलल खयस हनलफ खयस पपत ममहममद वलल खयस शरयफत पपत महतयब खयस समसत यनवयसलगण यनकट मननदर, .................. यवपकलगण। यदनयसकय - 17.04.2023 नगर पसचययत यठररय यनजयवत खयस, थयनय कक नट, जजलय बरटलल। पतयवलल पटश हहई। पररवयदल कट यवदयन अजधवकय कम बहस तलबल पर सपनय तथय पतयवलल कय अवलमकन यकयय। पतयवलल कट अवलमकन सट सपष हक यक पयथर दयरय पयथरनय पत वयसतट कम पररवयद मम जलयट यवपकल आयद कट दजर करनट कट आदटश यदनयसयकत 09.11.2022 दयरय पररवयद कट रप मम दजर यकयय गयय। यवरद पयथरनय पत दयजखल यकयय गयय थय। जजसट नययययलय कट पररवयदल कय बययन अनतगरत धयरय 200 दस०प०सस० मम सवयस कम एवस गवयहयन पल०डबलल०-1 कट रप मम उवकश खयन व पल०डबलल-2 अनतगरत धयरय 202 दस०प०सस० कट असतगरत परलयकत करययय गयय हक। कट रप मम अफजयल पल०डबलल०-3 कट रप मम यदलयवर खयन कट बययन पररवयदल इलययस खयस दयरय अपनट बययन अनतगरत धयरय 200 सनन 2016 " 10.08.2016 मम फयरख खयस नट बमलय यक मक जमलन बटचनय चयहतय हह कम एगलममट टल सटल करययय और 10 दस०प०सस० मम सशपथ कथन यकयय हक यक स। मकनट खरलदटनट कय समचय। मकनट यदनयसक लयख रपयट फयरख, हनलफ, हहसकन खय, फयरख कट भयई इमरयन तथय शरयफत कम यदयय। 11 मयहनट मट रजजसटटल हमनय थय। जब मकनट रजजसटरल कम कहय तम यट टयल मटमल करनट लगट। बयद मम मपझट पतय चलय यक जमलन पर मपकदमय चल रहय हक इन लमगम नट बमलय यक मपकदमय जलतनट कट बयद हम रजजसटटल करय दटगट। यदनयसक 16.10.2022 कम हनलफ यमलट तम हमनट पकसट वयपस मयसगट तम वम गयलल दटनट लगय। मक घर चलय आयय शयम कम यट सब लमग हमयरट घर मम आयट और गयलल गपपय करनट लगट। यट बमलट पकसट नहल दटगट और पकसट मयसगट कम जयन सट मयर दटगम। घर मम मटज और टल.वल. तमड- फमड यदयय। इन लमगम नट मपझट मयरय भल। थयनय गयट लटयकन कमई कययरवयहल नहल हहई। एस.एस. पल सयहब कट यहयस दरखयसत दल लटयकन कमई कययरवयहल नहह हहई। ” पतयवलल कय परलशललन यकयय। पतयवलल पर रयकत पररवयदनल कट बययन अनतगरत धयरय 200 दस०प०सस० व पयथरनय पत अनतगरत 156(3) अपनट रजजसटरल कट नयम पर जलयट गयट 10 दस०पस०सस० मम यवपकलगण दयरय वयदल मपकदमय कट दयरय यवपकलगण सट लयख रपयट कम मयसगय तम यवपकलगण दयरय वयदल मपकदमय सयथ घऱ मट घपसकर मयरपलट करनट व गयलल गललज व जयन सट मयरनट कक धमकक दटनट कय अयभकथन यकयय हक। वयदल कट दयरय बययन असतगरत धयरय 200 पल०डबलल०-2 दस०पस०सस० कट समथरन मम गवयहयन पल०डबलल०-1 यदलदयर खयन नट अपनट बययनन मम उपरमक घटनय कय कट रप मम अफजयल, पल०डबलल०-3 उवकश खयन व समथरन यकयय हक। पतयवलल पर पसतपत समसत मलजखक व अयभलटखलय सयकय तथय पररवयदपत कट कथनम कट आधयर पर यवपकलगण फयरख, हनलफ, अपरयध असतगरत धयरय 406,452,504,506,323,427 भय.दस.सस. फयरख, हनलफ, भय.दस.सस. बननय पतलत हमतय हक। अतय यवपकलगण इमरयन व शरयफत कम असतगरत धयरय 406,452,504,506,323,427 मट यवचयरण हटतप तलब यकयट जयनट कय आधयर पययरप हक। इमरयन व शरयफत कट यवरद पथम दषयय हहसकन खयस, हहसकन खयस, आदटश तदनपसयर अयभयपकगण फयरख, 406,452,504,506,323,427 फयईल करनट व धयरय 204(3) समन यनगरत हम पतयवलल वयसतट हयजजरल अयभयपक यदनयसक 13.05.2023 इमरयन व शरयफत कम असतगरत धयरय मम यवचयरण हटतप जररयट समन तलब यकयय जयतय हक। सययकयन कक सलचल व धयरय 204(4) दस०पस०सस. कय अनपपयलन सपयनयशत हमनट कट पशयत हल कम पटश हम।" हहसकन खयस, हनलफ, 6. After considering the above submissions and the material on record, I find merit in above referred arguments that no offence could be made out under Section 406 I.P.C. and in this regard facts of the present cases are squarely covered by facts and law as held in Radheshyam & Ors. (Supra). So far as arguments, in regard to other offence, is concerned, there is further merit in arguments of learned counsel for applicants that in order to give criminal color to a dispute which is essentially of a civil in nature present proceedings was initiated. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 is set aside, however, taking into consideration that this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party no. 2, therefore the matter is remitted back to learned Trial Court to consider the matter afresh and pass an order, after hearing opposite party no. 2 within 3 months from today in accordance with law. 8. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Saurabh