The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application. The Court held that the non-payment of sale consideration was a civil dispute, not a cognizable offence, and the allegations were vague and unsubstantiated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 65
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1602 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lokendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shanker Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Shri Shiv Shanker Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Afzal, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State-respondents.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hasanpur, Jyotiba Phule Nagar whereby his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. bearing Application No. 480 of 2020 (Lokendra versus Preetam and others) has been rejected.
On 02.11.2020, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 alleging that he had a plot adjacent to the plot of Preetam Singh (respondent No. 4). The respondent No. 4 asked the petitioner that as both of them had plots adjacent to each other, both should sell the plots together. The petitioner agreed to his proposal. The respondent No. 4 said that he will get the entire sale consideration deposited in his own account and the petitioner should execute the sale deed and the petitioner agreed to this also as he had very good relations with the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh). On 06.07.2020, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) executed a joint sale deed in favour of Phooljahan, Mubarig and Nawajish. However, in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the aforesaid persons have not been named as accused.
Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequently, when he demanded the money from the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh), he kept on avoiding the same.
The manner in which the Court has to exercise power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., 2015 (6) SCC 287 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without
proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out." The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that "Section 156 (3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
As per the averments made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner executed a sale deed of his land jointly with the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) in favour of the purchasers Phooljahan, Mubarig and Nawajish and the petitioner has agreed to the suggestion of the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) that the money of sale consideration will be deposited in the bank account of the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh), who will pay the same to the petitioner later on. The petitioner had good relations with the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) and believing him, the petitioner executed the sale deed. There is absolutely no allegation against the purchasers that they did not pay the amount of sale consideration. The purchasers have not been made parties to the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or to the instant writ petition. Besides the aforesaid Preetam Singh, one Rajwala son of Preetam (respondent No. 5), and Irshad Ali (respondent No. 6) have also been opposite parties in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid persons have got a sale deed executed by the petitioner by cheating and fraud but there is no material to substantiate the aforesaid allegation.
The petitioner has alleged that on 24.09.2020, he demanded Rs. 4,50,000/- from the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 who stated that they will not give the amount and they have obtained the sale deed by cheating him. Upon the petitioner's objection, they abused and beaten him and threatened him to entangle him in a false case by their daughter.
The aforesaid allegations are absolutely vague. The names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 do not find place in the entire transaction and the petitioner had no occasion to demand any amount from them. The general allegation against the three respondents that they will entangle him in a false case on behalf
of their daughter also appears to be false as it is not specifically stated that as which respondent said so. There is no averment that the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) had an intention to cheat the petitioner since inception of the transaction. The only allegation is that the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) has not paid the amount payable by him to the petitioner. The learned court below has rightly held that this dispute is purely of civil nature. The allegations made in the complaint do not make out the commission of any cognizable offence by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
Non payment of sale consideration by the respondent No. 4 (Preetam Singh) is a dispute of civil nature and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has rightly held so.
Examining the aforesaid facts in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner's application of the petitioner filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The writ petition, lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 15.3.2022 Jaswant
Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.16 16:00:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. sought for quashing an alleged cheating transaction was legally correct.
Whether the dispute over non-payment of sale consideration and alleged cheating constitutes a cognizable offence warranting police investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., 2015 (6) SCC 287Referred¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lokendra
State of U.P.
Subhash Vidyarthi
Jaswant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
