Ltd. & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:166408 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30455 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashraf Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepankar Shukla,Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
been filed making false and baseless allegations and no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Learned magistrate has not considered facts of the matter and position of law in correct perspective while passing the impugned order. There was business relationship between the parties and applicant was running building material shop. The opposite party no.2 has purchased some building material from the applicant and in that regard amount was paid to him. The version of complainant regarding sale of tractor or paying any amount to applicant is wholly false. It is further submitted that no ingredients of Section - 406 I.P.C. are made out and there is no evidence of any entrustment. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.08.2024. In paragraph no.36 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another : 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]" 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of facts of the matter and aforesaid position of law, no prima facie case is made out against applicant. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainant and of witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against applicant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 8. In the instant matter, it was alleged that applicant has agreed to sell his tractor against consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- and as a part payment and Rs. 50,000/- were paid to the applicant in cash and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was transferred into his account and Rs. 10,000/- were paid for insurance and applicant has promised to deliver the tractor within a few days but neither he has delivered the tractor nor he returned back his amount. The said version is supported by complainant under Section - 200 Cr.P.C. and by witnesses, whose statements were recorded under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. In view of specific facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid judgment referred by learned counsel for applicant is not applicable, as in the instant matter there are allegations of entrustment of money to the applicant and breach of trust. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings has to be exercised with due care in rarest of rare cases. In the instant matter, various factual aspects are concerned and determination of questions of fact is required, which is not permissible in proceedings under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant may raise his pleas at the time of hearing on charge before the trial court. Considering entire facts, no case for quashing of proceedings is made out, hence the prayer sought by applicant is refused. 9. However, considering facts of the case, it is directed that in case applicant appears/surrenders before the trial court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of four weeks from today or till the applicant appears/surrenders before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant in the aforesaid case. 10. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 18.10.2024 S Rawat
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including cognizance/summoning order dated 20.07.2024, of Complaint Case No.1021 of 2023, under Section - 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Saureekh, District - Kannauj, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chibramau, District - Kannauj. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned complaint has