The court dismissed the criminal revision seeking to set aside the discharge rejection order. However, it granted the revisionist a window to surrender for bail consideration and stayed coercive action against him.
Direction given for surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action for one month.
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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3519 of 2021
Revisionist :- Suresh Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vidya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
This crl. revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.4/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No. 682 of 2018 (State vs. Vijay Saxena and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1086 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.
On perusal of record, it appears that the informant Smt. Kavita Buddhiraja lodged the FIR with police station concerned on 2.8.2017 stating therein that she was in search of some property for her abode in Ghaziabad, accused Vijay Saxena and Surendra Chaudhari told her that they are engaged in business of property dealing and they have managed the place for her from accused Suraj Kumar and Roopa Agarwal as they are intending to sell their flat. The informant approached the said Sunil Kumar Agarwal and Roopa Agarwal and they also ensured her that the property is free from encumbrances. The informant got a registration of said flat executed from the accused No.1 and 2 i.e. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Roopa Agarwal on 12.5.2017 and same was registered before Sub Registrar, Ghaziabad. The informant paid Rs.4 lacs in the account of accused Sunil Kumar Agarwal. Subsequently, he came to know that the said land was mortgaged to bank for some loan and it was not free from liability. However, on assurance of accused persons, the informant also paid Rs.4 lacs, so that the loan may be paid out. The said accused persons neither cleared the loan on the property nor executed the sale deed in favour of the informant and sold the same to some other person. When the informant made a complaint to them, the accused persons abused and threatened her with life.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is not a party to the said agreement to sale. He is also not
beneficiary of any transaction entered between co-accused and informant. The NOC of said flat was also issued to co-accused Sunil Kumar Agarwal and amount was also paid to them, as per the prosecution case itself. There is no evidence on record of connecting the revisionist with the offence. There is no evidence of commission of cheating or forgery against the revisionist.
Learned AGA opposed the grounds taken in revision and contended that learned trial court has rejected the discharge application moved by the revisionist and co-accused after assigning cogent reason. The revisionist and co-accused are named in the FIR and on their initiative, the informant proceeded to purchase the property from Sunil Kumar Agarwal and Roopa Agarwal and transferred the money in favour of the co-accused.
I have gone through the revision along with the affidavit filed in support of this revision as well as the impugned order and the material brought on record, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any, illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error and is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, hence requires no interference by this Court.
The prayer to that extent of revisionist is hereby refused .
However, it is directed that in case the revisionist appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 773 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290.
It is further directed that for a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist.
It is made clear that the revisionist will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Kamarjahan
Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court order rejecting the revisionist's discharge application.
Whether the revisionist should be granted a reprieve to surrender for bail consideration.
Whether coercive action should be stayed against the revisionist for a specific period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Explained¶13
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P.Explained¶13
2004 (57) ALR 290
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Another (unnamed)
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
