HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Mr. S.S. Purohit, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg

Smt. Shanti Devi and the applicant got recorded in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid property comprising Khasra No.16Ka, Kevat No.1, Village Maan Singh Wala, Pargana Pachwadoon, District Dehradun. When the applicant was only two years of age, the mother of the applicant let out the property to erstwhile State of U.P. for residence cum office of SSP, Dehradun. When the 1 applicant was around six years of age, a registered sale deed was executed between the mother of the applicant and the State through Secretary to the Government on behalf of Hon’ble Governor for five years w.e.f. 1950. Thereafter, a subsequent lease deed was executed between the aforesaid parties. When the State tried to encroach the adjacent property, the mother of the applicant filed a suit for possession which was decreed in favour of the mother of the applicant vide order dated 08.02.1972 in Civil Appeal No.15 of 1970. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant filed a petition under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act, No.13 of 1972 seeking enhancement of rent which was allowed by the learned court. Thereafter, another petition was filed for enhancement of rent which was again allowed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun vide order dated

18.05.1999. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant filed a suit for eviction bearing Suit No.24 of 2001. The suit was decreed ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2002. A revision was filed by the State which was dismissed by this Court and a subsequent review application was also dismissed. The monetary part of the aforesaid decree stood satisfied as the Government and SSP deposited the decreetal amount.

3. The State issued a notification under Land Acquisition Act and tried to acquire the said property. This notification was challenged and this Court stayed the notification vide order dated 29.07.2003 in WPMB No.913 of 2003. But, this Court allowed the State to acquire whole of the disputed property it so desires. But, the Government directed the DGP to vacate and handover the said property and expressed its disinclination to acquire the property. The SDM during the aforesaid period surprisingly on 15.02.2014 alleged that the predecessor of the applicant were not the owner of the property and directed Naib Tehsildar to file an FIR. The FIR was filed 2 under Section 420 IPC and a charge-sheet was filed in pursuance thereto. The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant in Criminal Case No.144 of 2015, State vs. Ranjit Singh.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the property in-dispute has been a bone of contention between the parties since long and there have been multiple civil suits regarding the same. In all of those proceedings, the State and the SSP have themselves maintained that the predecessors of the applicant were the owners of the property and the State was merely a lessee. But, when all of the courts decided in favour of the applicant’s predecessors, the State very cunningly lodged the impugned FIR for ulterior motives. He further submits that the basic ingredient to book a person under Section 420 IPC is missing and this can be found out with a bare perusal of the FIR. He submits that it is a well settled proposition of law that in order to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredient is the existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention since the very inception of the transaction which cannot be the case in the particular case in hand as the applicant was only two years of age when the transaction began.

5. He further submits that the initiation of criminal proceedings at the hand of police are nothing but the grossest abuse of process of law at the behest of police authorities in which they are themselves interested which clearly subjugate the principle of natural justice. In the particular case in hand, the police is acting as a Judge in its own case.

6. Learned counsel the State/respondent relying upon its counter affidavit submits that the impugned FIR was lodged on the basis of report of the Naib 3 Tehsildar and the police on investigation and after taking statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. filed the charge-sheet which due diligence as the statements given by the witnesses fully corroborated the prosecution version. He further submits that on investigation, it was found that the mother of the applicant was not the owner of the property in-dispute and the property belonged to a Muslim family which has long back settled abroad and their successors are not traceable, therefore, the property has come to the Government by way of escheat and the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against the applicant.

7. Applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submits that the FIR in-question has been lodged by the authorities to circumvent the eviction order already passed against the State Government by competent court of law. He submits that it is wrong to assert that the mother of the applicant was not the actual owner of the property in-question as the State Government has itself taken the disputed property in lease from the mother of the applicant.

8. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case in hand is a classic case of abuse of process of law. The State authorities are blowing hot and cold against their own statements. They have since the very inception of the civil disputes have themselves maintained that the applicant and his predecessors were the owner of the property and the State was merely a lessee but when it transpired that the State could be evicted from the property, they lodged an FIR which is perverse, frivolous and vexatious to say the least as even if all the allegations of the State are accepted for a moment then also the applicant will be protected by the principle of doli incapax 4 as the applicant was only two years of age when the lease was granted in the favour of SSP Dehradun. As he could not have formed any intention because of his tender age, therefore, he cannot be said to have committed the offence of cheating.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the utmost essential element of cheating is that the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce the other party to deliver the property should have been from the very beginning which could not have been in this case. Therefore, this Court is constrained to use its extra ordinary powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law which is happening in this case. Accordingly, the present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 11.09.2014; cognizance/summoning order dated 03.01.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.144 of 2015, State vs. Ranjit Singh, under Section 420 IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun shall stand quashed.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.

11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 28.11.2025 5