Dismissed

Mohd Tauqeer Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024A482/31231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash prosecution for cheating and criminal breach of trust dismissed. Court held a prima facie case existed despite applicant's claim of contradictory charges, which trial court can address during framing.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings is dismissed.

Mohd Tauqeer Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:155577

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl.No.25)

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31231 of 2024

¶6

Applicant :- Mohd Tauqeer Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nitish Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 13.06.2023 along with the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.08.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 90 of 2023 (State vs. Tauqueer Ahmad and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 7, Allahabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant case, the allegation against the applicants is that they have taken a sum of Rs. 20 lacs for selling a land to the opposite party no.2. Subsequently, it was realized that the said land did not belong to the applicants herein. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant case, an agreement to sell the was executed and in the said agreement the sale consideration was only Rs. 19 lacs. Therefore, there was no question of making payment of Rs. 20 lacs as alleged by the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that after submission of charge sheet under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 IPC, the learned trial court has taken cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicants herein vide order dated 11.08.2023 for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the applicants relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) LTD and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 705, submits that two offences, one of criminal breach of trust as well as the offence of cheating cannot be there in the same case for the same facts. Either it could be criminal breach of trust or it could

¶11

be a case of cheating. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that all the amounts, which are alleged to have been paid are allegedly paid in cash and there is no proof thereof. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case.

¶12

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that as per the allegations made in the instant FIR, the applicants are the history sheeters and Bhu Mafias, against whom various cases of the similar nature as well as the other offences of severe nature are pending before the different police stations. Since the applicant no.1 is an Advocate and has undertaken to get the documents prepared for execution of sale deed including the stamp duty etc., in that pretext the entire amount of Rs. 20 lacs was taken by the applicants. The Additional Advocate General further submits that the allegations made in the instant FIR have been duly supported by the witnesses and after concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer having found the charges proved against the applicants, has filed the charge sheet. The trial court having found the prima facie case against the applicants, has taken cognizance of the matter and summoned the applicants. Thus, from the entire material available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants, therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case in view of the judgments of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque : (2005) 1 SCC 122 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315.

¶13

Having heard the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that in the instant case, the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 24.09.2022, alleging therein that he is a Government Teacher. On 10.12.2018, the applicants had proposed to sell the land available for sell, claiming to be their land and thereupon, the opposite party no.2 has agreed to purchase the said land. In connection therewith an amount of Rs. 20 lacs was given to the applicants. Initially a cheque of Rs.8 lacs were given and Rs. 12 lacs in cash were given. After some time the applicants had returned the said cheque of Rs. 8 lacs and asked that the entire amount to be paid in cash, which was also paid by the opposite party no.2. Subsequently when it was realized by the opposite party no.2 that the said land did not belong to the applicants, he asked his money back, which the applicants assured to repay. However, subsequent to that the applicants by keeping the rifle on the chest of the opposite party no.2, threatened him to keep silent and also tried to kill the brother of the opposite party

¶14

no.2.

¶15

As per the allegations made in the FIR, the applicants herein are the history sheeters and Bhu Mafias, against whom various cases of the similar nature as well as the other offences of severe nature are pending before the different police stations as they have cheated various other persons. The aforesaid allegations are duly supported by the witnesses during the investigation and thereupon the charge sheet dated 13.06.2023 was filed against the applicant. Therefore, the cognizance was taken by the trial court vide order dated 11.08.2023. As the applicants have not disputed the agreement to sell executed between the parties with regard to sell of property in connection of which the amount has been allegedly given by the opposite party no.2 to the applicants. In view thereof, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶16

The averment of the applicants that the two charges one under Section 406 IPC and the other under Section 419 and 420 IPC could not go hand in hand and both are contradictory to each other. Only one set of charges can survive. The aforesaid submissions can be taken care by the trial court at the time of framing of the charges.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., specifically in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Ashish Pd.

¶19

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Tauqeer Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Tauqeer Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Singh Gusain and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Pinki Rani vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prince Chaprana and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Kumar Singh vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others

Rajpal Singh and Others vs Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Kartik Khosla vs State of U.P. and Another