Smt. Rekha Singh v. Komal Yadav and Ors.), under Sections
Case Details
Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19697 of 2022 Applicant :- Komal Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Kishor Singh,Chandra Prakash Pandey Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 has been moved to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.
Legal Reasoning
5110 of 2021 (Smt. Rekha Singh Vs. Komal Yadav and Ors.), under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C, Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti, including the summoning order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Basti. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint with the allegation that the applicant accused persons had family terms with her and used to visit her house frequently, they started to borrow money time to time and used to return the same, hence the complainant and her family had a lot of faith upon them. In the month of November, 2020 accused persons came to her house and requested for money of Rs. 5,00,000/- with an assurance to return the same by the end of January, 2021. Complainant and her husband arranged some money on their own and borrowed some rupees from well-wisher and relatives and provided Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused persons in presence of the complainant and her father in law Sri Jata Shanker Singh. They did not return the money, husband of the complainant went to their house and asked to return the loaned money they asked for bank account. They were provided Original Bank Pass-book and Aadhar Card by her husband, any how on 15th January, 2021 accused persons provided Rs.2,00,000/- in her H.D.F.C Bank A/c through R.T.G.S and assured to return the rest Rs.3,00,000/- in near future but they did not. On 04th Feb. 2021 at about 10:00 a.m. husband of the complainant went to the house of the accused and demanded rest three lacs rupees upon which they become annoyed, they abused and threatened to kill the entire family, if her husband comes again and asked loaned money. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C and Surya Deo Singh and Jata Shaker Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C and on 07.09.2021, applicants were summoned under aforesaid sections as accused. 4. Being aggrieved, this application has been moved on the grounds that applicants had given Rs.2,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2 on 15th Jan. 2023 to execute a sale deed of her land but it was not executed. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Now opposite no. 2 and her husband want to grab the money of the applicant by cooking a false and frivolous story and accordingly they have instituted the complaint. The applicants have been granted bail, the present complaint and the summoning order is an abuse of process of law, hence the entire 2 of 4 proceeding of the impugned criminal complaint be quashed. 5. An F.I.R has also been lodged by applicant no. 2 Ram Sajeevan Yadav against opposite party no. 2 Smt. Rekhan Singh, her husband Surya Dev @ Bhola Singh and Nebu Lal Chaudhary at crime no. 22/2021 on 08th March, 2021 for an offence alleged to be committed by the accused persons on 15th January, 2021 stating therein that the informant was cheated by the accused persons on the pretext of selling the land by misguiding him and had taken Rs.2,00,000/- through R.T.G.S and thereafter neither they returned the money nor executed sale deed in favour of the informant and when they were asked to return the money, they abused and threatened to kill. Here a question arises that if as per this application the impugned complaint and dispute therein is civil in nature why the F.I.R lodged by the applicants would not be called a matter of civil in nature. According to this court when on the similar facts, the applicants have lodged the F.I.R and opposite party no. 2, her husband and another have been prosecuted taking the recourse of criminal law why the impugned criminal complaint would not be sustainable. On the basis of aforesaid reasoning this court is of the view that the pleas are not available to the applicants. 6. Another question arises regarding the credibility and veracity of the applicant’s case that now-a-days generally, no part of land is available for Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also noteworthy that the applicants have not given any 3 of 4 particular of the proposed land, its area and Khasra number etc. If there was an offer from the side of opposite party no. 2, her husband and Nebu Lal regarding sale of land, the property belonged to them would have also been mentioned in F.I.R lodged by applicant no. 2 or at least in this petition. Hence it appears that the F.I.R has been lodged by the applicant no. 2 only in defence of the complaint earlier lodged on 08th Feb. 2021 before the lodgement of F.I.R dated 08th March, 2021 by applicant no. 2. 7. From the above discussion it comes out that both the parties have allegations against each other and which allegation is true and correct can only be decided after taking evidence during the course of trial and after trial. 8. On the face of record at present it can not be said that the impugned complaint is an abuse and misuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice or to give effect to any order to this Court any interference is warranted. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed.
Decision
O R D E R This application under Section 482 is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 28.04.2023. Vinod. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4 of 4