Dismissed

Smt. Gyana Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2022A482/649/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that prima facie offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, and 504 were disclosed by the complaint facts regarding cheating and non-execution of a sale deed due to an undisclosed loan. The application was thus rejected as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order and proceedings was dismissed.

Smt. Gyana Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 649 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Gyana Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Singh Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Vinit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA, for the State, and perused the record of the case.

¶4

By way of the present application the applicants have made a prayer to quash the order dated 16.11.2021 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.249 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406 and 504 IPC, Police Station Subhashnagar, District Bareilly pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bareilly.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present dispute is purely of civil nature and instead of filing a case for specific performance, opposite party no.2 lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants which is not permissible under the law. He further submitted that as the opposite party no.2 himself violated the oral agreement and did not pay the remaining amount, therefore, the applicants could not execute the sale deed in his favour and if the remaining amount is paid by opposite party no.2 then they are ready to execute the sale deed in his favour.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that without analyzing the facts of the case trial court in a routine manner passed summoning order and, therefore, the proceedings as well as the summoning order both are bad and are liable to be quashed.

¶7

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA submitted that the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 prima facie discloses offence under Sections 420, 406 and 504 IPC against the applicants as there was an intention of the applicants since the beginning to cheat opposite party no.2 and he received Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) from opposite party no.2 under the pretext to execute a sale deed but on the land in dispute there is a loan of Rs. 1,37,000/- and the applicants are neither returning Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) to opposite party no.2 which was admittedly given by him to the applicants nor they are ready to execute the sale deed. therefore, the present application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶9

There is specific allegation made in the complaint against the applicants that on the property in dispute there is a loan of Rs. 1,37,000/- and this fact shows that the applicants since beginning were having intention to cheat the opposite party no.2 and in pursuance of their modus operandi, they also received Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party no.2 under the pretext to execute the sale deed which was not possible as there was a loan on the property in dispute and, therefore, in my view, there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order as prima facie offence under Sections 420, 406 and 504 IPC is made out against the applicants.

¶10

Therefore, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 SKM

¶12

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.05.24 19:50:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Gyana Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gyana Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid @Rashid Husain and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooja Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajak Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rab Vs Jai Prakash and Others