Nitin Singh v. State of Uttarakhand another

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 1 Ashish Naithani J. Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, in Criminal Case No. 1219 of 2020 (State v. Sandeep Tyagi and Others).

2. The FIR was lodged pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) CrPC passed by the competent Magistrate on the complaint of Rajesh Kumar (Respondent No. 2), alleging that the accused persons, including the present Applicants, committed fraud in connection with multiple land sale transactions.

3. The gravamen of the allegations is that the principal accused Sandeep Tyagi, in connivance with Smriti Garg (Applicant in C-482 No. 723 of 2021) and Nitin Singh (Applicant in C-482 No. 926 of 2021), sold a particular piece of land to the complainant vide a registered sale deed dated 29.11.2014.

4. Subsequently, it is alleged that the same land was again sold by Sandeep Tyagi to the mother-in-law of the complainant on

28.10.2015, concealing the fact of the earlier transaction and thereby cheating the complainant.

5. The FIR also alleges that the accused persons executed multiple sale deeds pertaining to the same parcel of land and fraudulently induced the complainant and his mother-in-law to part with substantial amounts of money.

6. The investigating agency, upon completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet dated 21.06.2020 against the present Applicants and the principal accused Sandeep Tyagi under Section 420 IPC.

7. The learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, vide order dated 04.08.2020, took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC and summoned the Applicants to Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 2 Ashish Naithani J. face trial in Criminal Case No. 1219 of 2020 (State v. Sandeep Tyagi & Others).

8. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, the Applicants herein have filed the present petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 04.08.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceedings.

9. Both of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are being decided collectively since they involve a common question of law and facts.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature, arising from a contractual land transaction between private parties, and has been given a criminal colour with mala fide intent.

11. It was contended that the complainant is already in possession of the land in question, and the allegations primarily pertain to title disputes, which fall within the domain of civil courts.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Smriti Garg, argued that she was merely the prior title holder of the land, who had lawfully sold the property to the principal accused, Sandeep Tyagi. Her involvement ceased after the execution of the sale deed in favour of Sandeep Tyagi, and she has no role whatsoever in any subsequent transaction between Sandeep Tyagi and the complainant.

13. It was further submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR or the charge sheet that the applicant Smriti Garg induced the complainant, made any false representation, or derived any benefit from the subsequent sale transactions. Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 3 Ashish Naithani J.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant Nitin Singh submitted that he was merely a witness to the sale deed dated

29.11.2014 executed by Sandeep Tyagi in favour of the complainant and that he had no pecuniary interest or involvement in the transaction.

15. It was argued that the act of attesting a sale deed does not constitute any element of deception or fraudulent inducement. Thus, the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC are not satisfied against the applicant Nitin Singh.

16. Both Applicants placed reliance on the fact that a civil suit, being Original Suit No. 114 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar and Another v. Sandeep Tyagi and Another), seeking a permanent injunction, has already been instituted and is pending between the parties concerning the same property.

17. It was submitted that allowing criminal proceedings to continue alongside the civil suit would amount to double jeopardy and an abuse of the process of law.

18. The learned counsel further argued that the summoning order dated 04.08.2020 has been passed mechanically without application of mind, without any analysis as to how the ingredients of the offence of cheating are satisfied.

19. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, to contend that the continuation of criminal proceedings in purely civil disputes amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 4 Ashish Naithani J.

20. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, supported by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 (Complainant), submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and substantiated during the investigation disclose a clear and cognizable offence under Section 420 IPC.

21. It was submitted that the Applicants, in connivance with co- accused Sandeep Tyagi, knowingly and dishonestly executed multiple sale deeds over the same property with the intent to defraud the complainant and his family members.

22. The learned counsel argued that the charge sheet is based not merely on the FIR but also on the statements of material witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which demonstrate involvement of the Applicants in the conspiracy to cheat the Complainant.

23. Concerning applicant Smriti Garg, it was contended that her act of executing the earlier sale deed in favour of Sandeep Tyagi, while knowing that the property was subsequently being resold to third parties, forms part of the chain of events constituting the offence.

24. With respect to Applicant Nitin Singh, the claim that he was merely an attesting witness was refuted by pointing to his presence during the transaction and his role in assuring the complainant about the title, both of which, as reflected in witness statements, are central to the allegation of cheating and warrant scrutiny during trial.

25. It was submitted that the argument regarding the pendency of a civil suit does not dilute the criminality of the act. The existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the ingredients of the offence are independently satisfied. Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 5 Ashish Naithani J.

26. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, and the quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage would not be appropriate when a prima facie case is clearly disclosed.

27. Strong reliance was placed on the judgments in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, to contend that merely because the allegations also disclose a civil wrong does not mean that criminal prosecution is unsustainable if the criminal offence is made out on the same set of facts.

28. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

29. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the scope of jurisdiction exercisable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, laid down seven illustrative categories where the power under Section 482 may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. However, it has been repeatedly emphasized that where the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should be slow to stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold.

30. In the present case, the foundational allegation is that the accused persons, including the present Applicants, have engaged in a deliberate and fraudulent design to deceive the Complainant by executing multiple sale deeds concerning the same property. It is not Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 6 Ashish Naithani J. merely a case of contractual failure or a defective title, but one where it is alleged that the complainant was dishonestly induced to part with money on the false representation that the title to the property was clear and marketable, despite the accused persons being aware of prior transactions.

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, has unequivocally held that merely because a civil dispute is also involved does not mean that a criminal complaint is not maintainable, if the ingredients of the criminal offence are made out. Similarly, in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is not necessary that every detail of the offence be set out in the complaint; what matters is whether the substance of the allegations discloses the commission of an offence.

32. Applying these principles, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the applicant Smriti Garg that her role ceased upon the execution of the sale deed in favour of the principal accused Sandeep Tyagi. The chain of transactions and the subsequent resale of the same property, as alleged, cannot be compartmentalized to absolve her of liability at this stage. Whether she had the requisite mens rea or was privy to the alleged conspiracy is a matter that can only be examined after the evidence is presented during the trial.

33. Likewise, the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant Nitin Singh that he was merely an attesting witness to the sale deed cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The charge sheet records statements from the complainant and other witnesses indicating that the applicant was not a passive witness but had a participatory role in facilitating the transaction. Whether this role Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 7 Ashish Naithani J. satisfies the threshold of criminal liability is a matter of appreciation of evidence, which falls within the exclusive domain of the trial court.

34. The contention that the pendency of a civil suit between the parties (O.S. No. 114 of 2019) warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings is equally untenable. It is trite law that the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution if the elements of the criminal offence are independently satisfied. This Court further finds that the summoning order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, cannot be said to suffer from any perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity. The learned Magistrate has recorded satisfaction upon examination of the charge sheet and case diary that sufficient material exists to take cognizance under Section 420 IPC.

35. Given the material available in the charge sheet, including the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the prima facie involvement of the applicants cannot be ruled out. Whether the allegations will ultimately be substantiated is a matter to be tested during the trial, and it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to conduct a roving inquiry into the facts at this stage.

36. The applicants have failed to make out any case warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal proceedings. ORDER Given foregoing discussion, both Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 2021 (Smriti Garg v. State & Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 8 Ashish Naithani J. Another) and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 926 of 2021 (Nitin Singh v. State & Another) are hereby dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:17th June, 2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 723 of 2021, Smriti Garg Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr– With Criminal Misc. Application No. 926 of 2021, Nitin Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand. 9 Ashish Naithani J.