Urmila Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18226

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36721 of 2024

Applicant :- Urmila Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Pal,Rajesh Kumar,Udayveer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of summoning order dated 16.01.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.17195 of 2023 (Smt. Urmila Devi and another vs. Rajat Singh), under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Bithri Chainpur, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-3, Bareilly.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. As per complainant, he has given an amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the applicants for purchasing of a plot but no such written agreement has been shown. There is no documentary proof of alleged payment made to the applicants. Only a vague allegation has been made against the applicants and even the number of plot regarding which alleged amount was given has not been mentioned. It was submitted that even considering the version of the complainant, dispute is civil in nature and no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out and thus impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶10

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶11

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

¶12

Perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2/complainant has alleged that the applicants have agreed to purchase their 180 square meter plot in Khasra No.451, situated at Village Dohariya. After deal was settled the complainant has given an amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the applicants and applicants had issued receipt against said payment but later on they refused to execute the sale deed or to return back their amount. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Whether the alleged receipt is forged or

¶13

otherwise, can only be decided during trial. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the prayer as sought by learned counsel for the applicants is hereby refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application.

¶16

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally in above terms.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Jitendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Urmila Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases