The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order and criminal proceedings in a cheating case involving land sale allegations.
Prayer for quashing of impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings refused.
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. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32125 of 2022
Applicant :- Nand Kumar Pachauri And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 5.7.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 28618 of 2021 (Saurabh Sharma Vs. Nand Kumar Pachauri and another), under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C., Hathras.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicants had entered into a contact for sale of half portion of the plot measuring 410 square yards, which he had purchased in the year 2015 from Yogendra Pal and Rakesh Kumar. On his assurance, the applicants had paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs through cheque and amount of Rs. 3 lakhs through R.T.G.S. and balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed, however the applicants failed to execute the sale-deed and on an inquiry, it was revealed that applicants had earlier sold the plot in question to Tejveer and Himanshu and by making false representation had taken a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- from the opposite party No. 2 and swindled the same.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings is refused.
However, in case the applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail, their bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 after hearing both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.11.2022 KU
Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.14 17:02:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings should be allowed.
Whether prima facie the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalFollowed¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaFollowed¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherFollowed¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶12
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nand Kumar Pachauri And Another
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
