Karan Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 20796 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved On: 19.04.2022
 
Delivered on: 13.12.2022
 
Court No. - 25
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26090 of 2012
 

 
Applicant :- Karan Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- ---,Ram Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Singh,Kartikey Singh,Pankaj Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for opposing party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No.3903/X of 2012 (State vs. Karan Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2012, under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Vrindaban, District-Mathura, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura as well as the charge-sheet no.175 of 2012 dated 06.02.2012.

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that the first information report was lodged on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 06.02.2012 at 13:00 hrs. wherein it is alleged that on 14.11.2011 the father of opposite party no.2 had obtained a sum of rupees Rs.50 lakhs as earnest money for selling his agricultural land. On receiving the information, his maternal-grandfather Karan Singh son of Kamal Singh and his son Veer Singh, resident of Village Bajhora, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura came to his house with an intention to grab his money by cheating and proposed the informant to purchase their land bearing Khasra No.253, area 0.3640 hectare for consideration of a sum of Rs.32 lakhs and asked the informant to give 25% amount of the consideration, i.e., 8,00,000/- as earnest money and the rest 75% amount, i.e., 24,00,000/- to be given within twenty months at the time of execution of sale deed. At that time, his real maternal uncle Rajbir Singh son of Mansha Sahai was present there. Under the influence of accused-applicants, the informant along with his family relative Bharat Singh son of Suraj Singh and Mahawar son of Mangal Singh and accused-applicants Karan Singh and Veer Singh proceeded towards registry office Chhata and in the way in order to win the trust of the informant, the accused-applicants got deposited Rs.5,50,000/- in their A/c No.03785111005249 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vrindaban and Rs.2,50,000/- in A/c No. 85322200023729 of Syndicate Bank, Chaumuha on 15.11.2011. Thereafter, they reached at registry office, Chatta along with witnesses. The accused-applicants got down from the car and on the pretext of urine etc. they disappeared from there then the informant took his companions Bharat Singh and Mahavir Singh to his maternal's village and narrated the entire incident to Badan Singh, Badley Singh and Padam Singh who searched the accused-applicants but resulted in vain. On 18.11.2011 at about 11-12 o'clock both the accused-applicants returned to the village Bajhera. Then Nanhu Singh son of Bhajjo Singh, Prem Singh and his maternal uncle along with other villagers of his Nanihal talked with them, thereupon, they accepted that they had dishonestly taken Rs.8 lakhs from the informant on the pretext to sell land and they got it deposited in their loan accounts and also assured to return the aforesaid amount to the informant within two months. During this period, the accused-applicants assured the informant several times to return the money within two months and on 18.01.2012 when the informant asked them to return the money, they did not return the money and instead of it they got infuriated and abused him. They refused to return the money and also threatened him not to ask for money again, otherwise, they will kill him.

4. It has been alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 173, 253, 255, 256 and 261 is a joint agricultural holdings of applicant no.1 Karan Singh son of Kamal Singh, Laxman son of Kamal Singh, Hanso widow of Manauri and Bharat Ram son of Manauri. Their names are also recorded in the revenue record. The total area of above mentioned agricultural land is 9.5 acres. It was decided amongst the brother of applicant no.1 to sell out a part of the aforesaid land. A distant relative Dilip Singh was having interest in purchasing the land property from the applicant no.1 and thus the opposite party no.2 approached the applicant no.1 Karan Singh to purchase a small portion of the Khasra No. 173 having area 2.225 hectares. Out of this big chunk of landed property, only 3 bighas of the land were agreed to be sold by the applicants in favour of opposing party no.2. The applicants are still ready to sell 3 bighas of the land from Khasra No. 173 situated at village Bajhera, provided the opposite party no.2 adheres and comply his promise. It is borne out from the first information report itself that the total agreed sale consideration was of Rs.32 lakhs out of which the applicants have received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from opposite party no. 2. In event, the opposite party no.2 pay the remaining sum of Rs.24 lakhs to the applicants within two months, the applicants undertake that they would execute a sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2 regarding agreed portion of the land.

5. It is also alleged that opposite party no.2 wants to mount pressure upon the applicants by lodging false report and frivolous criminal proceedings against the applicants and has lodged the frivolous and bogus first information report by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants. It is further submitted that the allegation made in the first information report is not at all confidence generating, beside it appears to be artificial one, because of the reason that no prudent man would hand over or deposit a huge amount of Rs.8 lakhs without any concrete, formal or legal documentation. There is a complete absence of any instruments in this regard. In fact, the amount shown to be deposited in the bank accounts is the money which was deposited by the applicants themselves as proceeds of agriculture produce. The present controversy is purely civil one and contractual liability between the parties. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of offence under Section 420 and 506 I.P.C. are not made out. The applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. The applicant no.1 is aged about 65 years and as such he has been harassed by opposite party no.2 for his no fault. Rather, it is an arm twisting by opposite no.2 so that the applicants may be pressurized to deliver their valuable property.

6. It is further alleged that the applicants had challenged the aforesaid first information report before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3301 of 2012 and vide order dated 23.03.2012 after consent of both the parties, this Court was pleased to protect the interest of applicants while observing that both the parties are ready and agreed that they would abide by the terms and conditions of oral agreement and the opposite party no.2 (complainant) was directed to pay the remaining amount of the consideration of Rs.24 lakhs through a bank draft in favour of Karan Singh and deposit the same before Registrar General, High Court of Allahabad before 30th March, 2012, and thereafter, a proper sale deed would be executed by the applicants in favour of opposite party no.2/complainant. The copy of order dated 23.03.2012 of this Court has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit. Had the opposite party no.2/complainant complied with the order of this Hon'ble Court, the entire litigation would have come to its logical conclusion at that stage, but it appears that the intention of the opposite party no.2 is not honest and he wants to mount pressure upon the applicants and to grab the property in dispute belonging to the applicants on a throw away prices. After registering the first information report the police has recorded the statement of informant Dilip Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the copy of the same is filed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation forged and fabricated document has been prepared after putting forged signature of applicant no.1 Karan Singh. The applicant no.1 has not executed any such paper which was furnished by opposite party no.2 to the police during the course of investigation. In sum and substance, the present dispute is purely of civil nature and if the entire allegations are taken to be true on its face value, it would constitute only civil dispute for the breach of contract. Therefore, no case punishable under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants and thus the entire criminal proceedings as well as the charge-sheet in the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 wherein it is alleged that on 15.11.2021 opposite party no.2 entered into unregistered agreement to sale with applicant no.1 so far as it relates to Khasra No. 277, area 1.257 hectare and Khasra No. 253, area 0.3640 hectare situated at village Bajhera, Police Station Barsana, Tehsil Chata, District Mathura for the sale consideration of Rs. 32 lakh and out of the sale consideration, the applicant no.1 received a sum of Rs. 8 lakh as earnest money. The copy of the unregistered agreement to sale dated 15.11.2021 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. It is also is alleged that opposite party no.2 deposited the said amount in the account of applicants in Oriental Bank of Commerce and Syndicate Bank, and thereafter, when opposite party no.2 approached the applicants at their home, they refused to return the earnest money and also to sell their land. Thereafter, opposing party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura for registration of the first information report in this regard on which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate called report from the police station and consequently the first information report was lodged. It is admitted that the applicants received payment of Rs.8 lakhs from opposite party no.2 which was deposited in their accounts. The Khasra Nos. 277 and 253, for which applicants had proposed to sell to opposite party no.2 is recorded in Khatauni in the name of applicant no.2, had already been mortgaged with the bank, therefore, both the properties cannot be sold and the applicants fraudulently proposed to sell their land to opposite party no.2 and taken Rs. 8 lakh as earnest money from opposite party no.2. The copy of Khatauni of Khasra Nos. 277 and 253 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-2. Thereafter, the applicants preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3301 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court and in pursuance of the order dated 23.03.2012 of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition opposite party no.2 submitted two cheques of Rs. 12 lakhs each in the name of applicant no.1, Karan Singh for depositing before the Registrar General of this Court to his earlier counsel Sri Sanjay Kumar who had appeared and preferred counter affidavit in the aforesaid petition on behalf of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 was provided the copy of the counter affidavit, and thereafter, so many times he enquired from his counsel Sri Sanjay Kumar about further development in the matter and about compliance of the order dated 23.03.2012 passed by this Court, then he always stated that he will inform him and under bonafiedly belief and solely relying upon his counsel that cheques have already been deposited before Registrar General of this Court he did not do any enquiry. When the present applicants preferred the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court challenging the charge-sheet dated 06.02.2012, then he came to know that Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate has not deposited the cheques given by opposite party no.2 before the Registrar General of this Court and when the opposite party no.2 asked him to provide the cheques in original given by him, he told that he will search the cheques because he had Kept the said cheques somewhere. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 came to know that the earlier counsel dealt his case with very carelessly and after passing of the ad-interim order on the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. he came to know that the time granted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.03.2012 had already passed. It is further alleged that now the opposite party no.2 came to know that Sri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate has already expired in the month of July, 2018. It is also alleged that both the plot nos. 277 and 253 of applicants are situated in village Bajhera, P.S. Barsana, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura are recorded as agricultural land and the circle rate of the land fixed by the Government is Rs.11,25,000/-per hectare but both the lands had already been mortgaged with the bank, therefore under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act as well as U.P. Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 the property which is under mortgage with the bank cannot be sold, therefore, the applicants-petitioners cheated the opposite party no.2. The photocopy of the circle rate has been filed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit. It is further alleged that opposite party no.2 had entered into an agreement to sale with the applicants for land Khasra No. 277 and 253 and not for Khasra No.173 and the applicants are misleading the Court by submitting that they are ready to keep their promise for sale of 3 bighas of land of Khasra No. 173. It is further alleged that Khasra No. 173 is a joint holding of the applicants and their family members and the portion of Khasra No. 173 which is in the part of applicants is more less and is not 3 Bighas. It is further alleged that opposite party no.2 lodged the first information report when the applicants cheated him by not executing sale deed in spite of earnest money taken by them and further they refused to execute the sale deed of Khasra No. 277 and 253. It is further submitted that due to mistake only Khasra No. 253 has been mentioned in the first information report as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that applicants after taking earnest money of Rs. 8 lakh not executed sale deed of Khasra No. 277 and 253 part of land in favour of opposite party no.2 and refused to sell the said land and now before this Hon'ble Court they are submitting that they are ready to execute sale deed for Khasra No. 173 (3 Bigha) which clearly shows that they are misleading this Court. The photostat copy of Khatauni of Khasra No.173 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-5 to the counter affidavit. It is further alleged that the agreement to sale is for Khasra No. 277 and 253 and not for Khasra No. 173 which clearly shows that offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants for committing fraud and forgery with opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that applicants have committed fraud with opposite party no.2 after taking earnest money for sale of Khasra Nos. 277 and 253, but they have refused to execute the sale deed and further the land of Khasra Nos. 277 and 253 was mortgaged with the bank which cannot be sold so criminal offence is made out against the applicants and as such charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer after due investigation is just and legal and the court below has taken the cognizance of the offence according to law. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the proceedings as well as in the impugned charge-sheet. Thus, the instant application is liable to be rejected.

8. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of applicants wherein it is submitted that no written agreement has taken place between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2. During the course of investigation, opposite party no.2 got prepared a forged, fabricated agreement after putting forged signature of applicant no.1 Karan Singh as he has not executed any such document. It is further submitted that Khasra Nos. 173, 253, 255, 256, 261 are a joint agriculture holding of applicant no.1 and his brothers. The opposite party no.2 was having interest in purchasing the land, thus he approached applicant no.1 to purchase a small portion of Khasra No. 173 having area 2.225 hectare, out of this big chunk of said property only 3 bighas land were agreed to be sold by the applicants in favour of opposite party no.2 and the applicants are still ready to give 3 bighas of land from Khasra No. 173 situated at village Bajhera and if opposite party No.2 does not want to take the above mentioned land, then the applicants are still ready to give the land of Khasra No. 253 area 0.3640 hectare provided that the opposite party No.2 agreed to pay remaining sum of Rs. 24 lakhs to the applicant as alleged in the first information report as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In relation to land mortgaged with the banks, it is submitted that the applicants have deposited the loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce vide receipt dated 15.11.2011. It is further alleged that opposite party No.2 has not complied with the order dated 23.03.2012 of this Court and the explanation for non-compliance of the order is not trustworthy. It is further alleged that the applicants are still ready to keep their promise and they need only one week's time for obtaining no dues certificate from the bank concerned provided that the opposite party No.2 adheres and comply his promise. It is further alleged that the applicant's land is situated at link road and the opposite party No.2 agreed to purchase the land in a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs. It is further submitted that there is no written agreement between the parties and the applicants are still ready to execute sale deed as per the terms and conditions of oral agreement. It is further submitted that the applicant never denied to execute the sale deed as per oral agreement taken place between them and the applicant is still ready to execute sale deed of Khasra No. 173, area 3 bighas. It is further alleged that as per order of this Court dated 23.03.2022, the opposite party No.2 did not deposit the DD of Rs.24 lakhs and he deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court. It is further alleged that the applicant entered into oral agreement to sale of Khasra No.173, but the opposite party No.2 only in order to grab the other land of applicants prepared forged, unregistered and undated agreement at a later stage for which he is liable to be punished. It is further alleged that the applicant has not signed on the unregistered agreement to sale and the Investigating Officer without taking handwriting expert opinion with regard to signature of applicant has submitted the charge-sheet in a very hurried and mechanical manner.

9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence punishable under Sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. It is also submitted that Khasra Nos. 173, 253, 255, 256 and 261 are a joint agricultural holding in the name of applicant no.1 Karan Singh son of Kamal Singh, Laxman son of Kamal Singh, Hanso widow of Manauri and Bharat Ram son of Manauri, having area of 9.5 acres. The opposite party No.2 approached the applicant No.1 Karan Singh to purchase a small portion of land of Khasra No. 173, area 2.225 hectares. Out of this big chunk of land, only 3 bighas of land were aggrieved to be sold by the applicants in favour of opposite party No.2 and they are still ready to sell 3 Bighas of the land from Khasra No.173 situated at village Bajhera, provided that opposite party No.2 to adheres and comply his promise. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the abuse of process of law to harass the applicants. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet is based on concocted and false facts and evidences, therefore, the impugned charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State has supported the impugned order passed by the court below and submitted that at the stage of proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence. It is further submitted that the genuineness of the unregistered agreement to sale can only be adjudicated by the trial court after recording the evidence. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that perusal of the first information report, evidence recorded during investigation and the unregistered agreement to sale, discloses the commission of the cognizable offence against the applicants, therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the proceedings of the lower court, thus the proceeding as well as the impugned charge-sheet cannot be quashed and he has relied on the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in R. P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604 and M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC online SC 850.

11. Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has submitted that although it was not mentioned in the first information report that unregistered agreement to sale was executed amongst the parties, but unregistered written agreement was drawn on 15.11.20211 between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2., copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the application it has been stated that "that the allegations in the aforesaid case is not at all confidence generating besides this, it appears to be artificial one, because of the reason that no prudent man would handover of deposit the huge amout of Rs. 8 lakhs without any concrete, formal or legal documentation" but in para 12 of the affidavit, it has been stated "that applicants are ready to keep their promise intact and would execute the sale deed of 3 Bighas from Khasra No.173, provided that the entire balance amount of Rs. 32 -8 = 24 lakhs is paid by the opposite party No.2". Thus, the contents of paragraph nos. 11 and 12 are of contradictory nature which indicates that document regarding payment of Rs. 8 lakh and remaining amount to be paid in 20 months and the unregistered deed was entered between the parties. It is also submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that it was left to be mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., but the first information report which was lodged on the basis of order passed on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it got reflection that an agreement to sale was regarding sale of Khasra No. 253. It is also submitted that due to mistake of the counsel, the agreement to sale regarding Khasra No. 277 was left to be mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and likewise unregistered agreement to sale was also left to be mentioned in the first information report. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 has stated that he is ready to execute sale deed of 3 Bighas land out of Khasra No.173 and if opposite party No.2 does want to get sale deed from Khasra No. 173, then he is still ready to execute sale deed from Khasra No. 253, area 0.3640 hectare, provided that opposite party no.2 pays the remaining balance amount of Rs. 24 lakhs to applicant No.1. It is further submitted that the applicant had deposited the loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in relation to the land mortgaged with the bank on 15.11.2011 which also shows that agreement to sale was arrived between the parties on 15.11.2011 regarding 3 Bighas out of Khasra Nos. 253 and 277. It is further submitted that from the perusal of Annexure No.CA-2, which is the copy of Khatauni of Plot Nos. 277 and 253, it appears that the land of Khata No. 175 was mortgaged with the bank of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- by Karan Singh and was also mortgaged by Bharat Singh and Bachhu Singh. It is further submitted that Khata No.175 consists of Khasra Nos. 173, 253, 256, 255, 261 and the Khata number which consists Khasra No. 277 was also mortgaged by Karan Singh son of Kamal Singh for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and co-sharers Mahesh Kumar and Ramveer had mortgaged it for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. It is further submitted that the disputed Khasra numbers were with the bank so it cannot be sold in view of the provisions of UP Agriculture Credit Act. It is also submitted that opposite party no.2 has honoured the order of this Court dated 23.03.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3301 of 2012 and handed over two account payee cheques bearing Nos.029419 and 029420 of Central Bank of India in the name of Karan Singh of Rs.12 lakhs (each) but that cheques were misplaced by his counsel due to which the same could not be deposited and later on his counsel died. The photostat copy of the cheques has been annexed as Annexure No.CA-3 to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that the first information report, evidence collected during investigation and the charge-sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offence against the applicants, therefore the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is further submitted that while exercising the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot appreciate the evidence. In above circumstances, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected.

12. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the file. In para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application, it has been stated that "the allegation made in the first information report is not at all confidence generating, beside it appears to be artificial one, because of the reason that no prudent man would hand over or deposit a huge amount of Rs.8 lakhs without any concrete, formal or legal documentation. There is a complete absence of any instruments in this regard. In fact, the amount shown to be deposited in the bank accounts is the money which was deposited by the applicants themselves as proceeds of agriculture produce". Meaning thereby, the applicant is denying the receipt of Rs.8 lakhs from opposite party no.2 as earnest money, but in para 12 of the affidavit it is stated that "the present controversy is purely civil and contractual liability between the contesting parties. The applicants are ready to keep their promise intact and would ready to execute the sale deed of 3 Bighas from Khasra No. 173, provided that the entire balance amount, i.e., Rs.32 lakhs - 8 lakhs = 24 lakhs is paid to the applicants by opposite party No.2 within two months or any time so fixed by this Court." According to Section 10 of U.P. Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 where an agriculturist who has availed himself of financial assistance from a bank by creating a charge or mortgage on land or interest therein shall not so long as the financial assistance continues to be outstanding, lease or create any tenancy rights on such land or interest therein without prior permission in writing of the bank nor shall any such rights accrue to any person during that period by reason of unauthorized occupation or adverse possession over such land or interest. Transfer is also a kind of interest and any transfer which is made in contravention of Section 10 of UP Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 shall be void. Section 10 of UP Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 reads as under:-

"10. Restrictions on creation of tenancy by an agriculturist borrower.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law relating to land tenures or any other law for the time being in force, an agriculturist who has availed himself of financial assistance from a bank by creating a charge or mortgage on land or interest therein shall not so long as the financial assistance continues to be outstanding, lease or create any tenancy rights on such land or interest therein without prior permission in writing of the bank nor shall any such rights accrue to any person during that period by reason of unauthorized occupation or adverse possession over such land or interest.

(2) Any lease granted or tenancy rights created in contravention of this section shall be void."

13. Transfer of interest includes the sale of the land also. Therefore, this land was not saleable without prior permission of bank because of loan taken by applicant no.1 Karan Singh on Khata No. 175.

14. If any person cheated dishonestly to cause wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the cheated person by deceitful means, it will give rise to both civil and criminal liabilities and it is for the aggrieved person to initiate proceedings for civil or criminal liability or for both. According to Section 10(2) of U.P. Agriculture Credit Act, 1973, any lease granted or tenancy rights created in contravention of this section shall be void. In above circumstances, until the loan of the bank remains unpaid, it cannot be transferred to the opposite party no.2. Moreover, whether the unregistered agreement to sale was executed on 15.11.2011 or not is a matter of fact and it can only be decided after taking evidence by the trail court. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P. Kapur's case (supra) has summarized some categories of cases where inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:-

"(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and a case where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. While, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.

15. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it is the domain of the trial court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) held that:-

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

16. Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra 2020 SCC online SC 850 has given following guidelines for exercising the inherent power of the court in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in paragraph 47 of the judgement as follows:-

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Art.6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." Therefore, even while passing such an interim order, in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, the High Court has to give brief reasons why it is necessary to pass such an interim order, more particularly when the High Court is exercising the extraordinary and inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error of law and also of facts in passing such an interim order of "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4961 of 2021".

17. In view of above, having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the present application which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

18. Therefore, the prayer for quashing of proceedings as well as the charge-sheet in the aforesaid case is, hereby, refused.

19. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.12.2022

Vikas

[Mohd. Aslam, J.]