Ajendra Singh v. Messrs Realtech Private Limited) u/s

1. Heard Sri S.D.S. Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Special C.J.M., Ghaziabad as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.931 of 2024, Registration No.5442 of 2019 (Ajendra Singh vs. Messrs Realtech Private Limited) u/s 406, 420, 506 IPC, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad or to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of this application. ₹

3. In the instant matter, O.P. no.2 has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.06.2019 which was treated as a complaint case. As per contents of the complaint, O.P. no.2 has given 15,00,000/- to the applicant, who happens to be a builder and Director of a Company, for purchase of flat/house at Plot no.158, Indrapuram Colony, Partarpur, District-Meerut. It is further alleged in the complaint that when O.P. no.2 went to the site, he found that there was no construction and even the applicant was not having the possession of the said plot. Thereafter, he demanded his money back, which was refused by the applicant and he was also threatened to be implicated in a false case. After filing of the complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted by the court below and after recording statement of complainant/O.P. no.2 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C., finding prima facie case to be made out against the applicant, summoning order has been passed on 07.09.2024, which has been assailed by means of instant application along with the entire proceedings of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the real fact is that O.P. no.2 along with others used to work as an agent/broker for the company and he has not paid any money to the applicant. He next submitted that actually O.P. no.2 being the agent had access to the office where documents of the companies were kept, and so he tried to blackmail her, for which she has lodged an FIR against him on 20.06.2019, u/s 384 and 506 IPC. He next submitted that no case u/s 406 and 420 IPC is made out against the applicant. He further argued that the proceedings under Section 420, 406 IPC cannot go on simultaneously. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2248. He further contended that in the instant matter complaint was filed on 14.06.2019 whereas summoning order has been passed on 07.09.2024, as such the same is barred by limitation and clearly in violation of the provisions of law provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. At last, he added that the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against her and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against her. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the correctness of the allegations levelled the applicant in the complaint can only be seen by the court below during trial of the case. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. There is an allegation against the applicant in the complaint that she has taken money from O.P. no.2 for providing flat/house to him, which was not given to him. The question, as to whether the payment was made by O.P. no.2 or not, is a pure factual averment, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri S.D.S. Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Special C.J.M., Ghaziabad as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.931 of 2024, Registration No.5442 of 2019 (Ajendra Singh vs. Messrs Realtech Private Limited) u/s 406, 420, 506 IPC, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad or to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of this application. ₹

3. In the instant matter, O.P. no.2 has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.06.2019 which was treated as a complaint case. As per contents of the complaint, O.P. no.2 has given 15,00,000/- to the applicant, who happens to be a builder and Director of a Company, for purchase of flat/house at Plot no.158, Indrapuram Colony, Partarpur, District-Meerut. It is further alleged in the complaint that when O.P. no.2 went to the site, he found that there was no construction and even the applicant was not having the possession of the said plot. Thereafter, he demanded his money back, which was refused by the applicant and he was also threatened to be implicated in a false case. After filing of the complaint, preliminary enquiry was conducted by the court below and after recording statement of complainant/O.P. no.2 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C., finding prima facie case to be made out against the applicant, summoning order has been passed on 07.09.2024, which has been assailed by means of instant application along with the entire proceedings of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the real fact is that O.P. no.2 along with others used to work as an agent/broker for the company and he has not paid any money to the applicant. He next submitted that actually O.P. no.2 being the agent had access to the office where documents of the companies were kept, and so he tried to blackmail her, for which she has lodged an FIR against him on 20.06.2019, u/s 384 and 506 IPC. He next submitted that no case u/s 406 and 420 IPC is made out against the applicant. He further argued that the proceedings under Section 420, 406 IPC cannot go on simultaneously. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 2248. He further contended that in the instant matter complaint was filed on 14.06.2019 whereas summoning order has been passed on 07.09.2024, as such the same is barred by limitation and clearly in violation of the provisions of law provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. At last, he added that the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against her and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against her. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the correctness of the allegations levelled the applicant in the complaint can only be seen by the court below during trial of the case. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. There is an allegation against the applicant in the complaint that she has taken money from O.P. no.2 for providing flat/house to him, which was not given to him. The question, as to whether the payment was made by O.P. no.2 or not, is a pure factual averment, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad