Allahabad High Court
Sujeet Agarwal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107194 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20380 of 2024 Applicant :- Sujeet Agarwal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Mani Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gopal Misra,Ravindra Verma Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Lal Mani Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Gopal Misra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No.553 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.131 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 341, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Cha, 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5, 3(2)5ka of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Raipurwa, District- Kanpur Nagar as well as Charge Sheet dated 19.01.2024 and cognizance order dated 22.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities Act), Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities Act), Kanpur Nagar.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged being registered as Case Crime No.131 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 341, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against ten named accused including the applicants who are four in number with the allegations that the informant had purchased a property in the year 2009 for which a registered sale-deed has been executed in the year 2021 in favour of Sujeet Agarwal (land mafia) and others by playing fraud in a forged manner, by conspiring with few other persons. The accused persons have also used caste indicative words against the informant and have threatened him for dire consequences.
4. It has been alleged that the informant Dinesh Kumar Kuril resident of 84/113 Plot No.14, Carwalo Nagar, Afeem Kothi, Police Station- Raipurwa, District- Kanpur Nagar belongs to scheduled caste category. Om Narain Beriwal executed a sale-deed in favour of the informant namely Dinesh Kumar Kuril and partner Ratan Lal Gupta on 28.05.2009 of property being 85/47 Laxmipurwa, Cooperganj, Kanpur Nagar for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- measuring 660 Gaj (549.98 square meter). After the aforesaid registry, tax was regularly being paid at Nagar Nigam. The property in question was mutated in the year 2009 itself in revenue records in favour of the informant and Ratan Lal Gupta.
5. In the aforesaid property one Manoj Kumar resided as a tenant and also looked after the property in question. The informant and the partner Ratan Lal Gupta whose names were already recorded in the revenue records in the year 2009, also used to visit the property from time to time in order to take care of the same. On 03.09.2022, the informant and Ratan Lal Gupta as well as Ravi Prakash alongwith few friends came at the property in question where they met Sujeet Agarwal who objected to their coming over the property in question. Sujeet Agarwal used unparliamentary language which was ignored by the informant as he did not want to enter into any fight, therefore, he returned. Again on 10.09.2022, informant alongwith Ratan Lal Gupta went to the place in question in order to meet the tenant Manoj Kumar. On the way, they met Sujeet Agarwal, Shivam Agarwal, Nikhil Agarwal and Kunal Agarwal who stopped them and without any reason started misbehaving with the informant as well as Ratan Lal Gupta. When the informant raised a query as to why they were objecting to their coming at the property in question to take care of the same, the aforesaid accused persons got annoyed and used caste indicative words like 'Chamar' and abused by using unparliamentary language and threatened for dire consequences. They also threatened that in case the informant again comes at the place, he would not be able to return safely.
6. Seeing the situation, the informant again returned in order to avoid any dispute. Likewise, the informant again went on 12.09.2022 alongwith few respectable persons to take care of the property and meet the tenant. The accused persons were present there and with common intention they obstructed the passage and after using caste indicative words like 'Chamar' used unparliamentary language. They threatened them for life and asked them to go away from the place. When a request was made by the informant as to why they are being harassed in such manner, they disclosed about the conspiracy being hatched in getting a sale-deed executed in the year 2021 of the same property in question for which a sale-deed had already been executed in favour of the informant and his partner in the year 2009. They also disclosed about the registered gift deed dated 25.11.2021. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 19.01.2024 wherein the accused persons have been summoned by order dated 22.05.2024. Investigation with regard to other named persons is still pending.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that a civil litigation is pending between the owner of the property in question namely Om Narayan Beriwal and Informant & his partner Ratan Lal Gupta having Suit No.334 of 2014 and in order to give a criminal colour, the present FIR has been lodged.
8. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sardar Ali Khan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home Department & Anr. reported in 2020 0 AIR(SC) 626; he submits that when once a suit regarding property in question is pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings in such a case are nothing but abuse of process of law. From the perusal of the version of the FIR as well as statements of witnesses, the only allegation regarding execution of sale-deed is against applicant no.1, therefore, no offence is made out against the other applicants, therefore, is liable to be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State submit that from the records it is clear that Om Narayan Beriwal is owner of House No.85/47 Laxmipurwa, Cooperganj, Kanpur Nagar. On 28.05.2009, a sale-deed was executed in favour of the informant and Ratan Lal Gupta by Vishnu Beriwal (son of Om Narayan Beriwal) of the property being 85/47 Laxmipurwa, Cooperganj, Kanpur Nagar measuring 660 Gaj (549.98 square meters). Subsequently in the year 2014, Om Narayan Beriwal filed cancellation of sale-deed suit being Case No.334 of 2014. During pendency of the aforesaid suit regarding cancellation of sale-deed a suit was filed by Sujeet Agarwal being Suit No.308 of 2014 against Om Narayan Beriwal, Dinesh Kumar and others which is pending.
10. Subsequently, one sale deed and two gift deeds have been executed in favour of the applicant no.1 by Om Narayan Beriwal in the year 2021. Placing the plaint of cancellation of sale-deed, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that Om Narayan Beriwal was owner of only 275.91 square meters but had executed a sale-deed of 549.98 square meters. Subsequently, the gift deed and sale-deed executed in favour of the applicant no.1 in the year 2021 was managed by playing fraud. The applicants not being in picture at the time when the sale-deed was executed in favour of the informant and Ratan Lal Gupta in the year 2009 had no occasion to file any suit as at the relevant point of time neither they were party in the suit for cancellation of deed which was filed by the owner nor were in any way concerned with property in question.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
12. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel calls for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Higher Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty
(ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
13. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the applicant no.1 in collusion with the other applicants as well as the owner of the property and other persons have conspired and got a sale-deed executed by playing forgery.
14. The submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicants that even if it is taken from the records that only the involvement of applicant no.1 is found in managing the sale-deed and gift-deed has no legs to stand as from the versions of the FIR as well as statements as recorded by the Investigating Officer, it is clear that applicant no.1 has conspired with the other applicants as well as owner of the property and his family members to get a gift deed/sale deed executed of the property which did not belong to the owner Om Narayan Beriwal who has himself admitted the same in the plaint of suit for cancellation of sale-deed. As regards the sale-deed executed in the year 2009 on the basis of which the name of the informant and Ratan Lal has already been recorded in revenue records, there is no order from any competent Court of law cancelling the same, hence the property belongs to informant and Ratan Lal Gupta. The sale-deed is still in existence and their names are there in revenue records.
15. The judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Thus, it is clear that once a sale-deed had already been executed by owner in favour of the informant and Ratan Lal in the year 2009 and was still in existence not being cancelled by any competent court, there was no occasion of gifting or executing another sale-deed that too in the year 2021.
16. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 19.01.2024 and cognizance order dated 22.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
17. After the aforesaid order was dictated, learned counsel for the applicants requests to issue a direction for bail.
18. Aforesaid prayer is rejected and the present Applicant U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, accordingly.
19. However, in case the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court below, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Kalp Nath Singh