Allahabad High Court
Pranwant Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 302 of 2017
Revisionist :- Pranwant Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vineet Kumar Singh Bisen,Alok Mehrotra,Alok Mehta,Anurag Vikram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Praveen Singh,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Vikram, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The present revision under sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed impugning the Judgment and order dated 09-02-2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 13286 of 2015(Swatantra Kumar Gupta Vs. Pranvant Singh and Others), whereby the learned court below has summoned the revisionist for the offence punishable under sections 406 & 420 I.P.C.
3. The opposite party no. 2 filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow alleging that the revisionist came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and introduced himself as Bearer/Broker of M/s Omex Ltd. The revisionist took the opposite party no. 2 to the office of the M/s Omex Ltd., Cyber Tower-II Floor T.C.-34/V-2, Vibhuti Khand, Police Station-Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The opposite party no. 2 and his relative, Anoop Gupta were convinced to buy a plot measuring 350 Square Yard for Rs. 11,75,000/- The officials of M/s Omex Ltd. promised that if the plot was not allotted within a period of two years, the opposite party no. 2 would be refunded Rs. 19,25,000/- which would be at rate of Rs. 5,500/- per Square Yard.
4. It is said that neither the plot was allotted as promised nor any amount was refunded to the opposite party no. 2. When the opposite party no. 2 and his relative put pressure and threatened the revisionist and officials of the Omex Ltd., the opposite party no. 2 was refunded Rs. 18,50,000/- instead of Rs. 19,25,000/-. This application was treated to be a complaint and after examining the complainant and witnesses under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., the impugned order was passed summing the revisionist and others to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 406 & 420 I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no. 2 has accepted Rs. 18,50,000/- which was paid to him after deducting TDS @ 5% and Rs. 75,000/- had been deposited in PAN of the opposite party no. 2 which is reflected in Form -16-A. A copy of Form 16-A of the Income Tax Act has been annexed with the revision at pages no. 37 to 40, which would reflect that Rs. 75,000/- has been deposited in the PAN number of the opposite party no. 2.
6. The agreement in pursuance to the compromise arrived at between the parties has also been placed on record as Annexure No. 1 to the revision. Para no. 3 of the said Agreement reads as under :-
"3.The First Party, in lieu of the aforesaid contribution of the Second Party towards purchase of the said Land foe the development of Hi Tech City, has agreed to allot a plot of approximately having an area of 350 Sq. Yds. in favour of the Second Party in the Colony developed by the First Party, after the licenses/LOI/other requisite permissions for the said Colony are granted by the concerned authorities."
7. The sum and substance of the allegation for cheating and criminal breach of trust is that instead of Rs. 19,25,000/-, the opposite party no. 2 was paid Rs. 18,50,000/- and thus, the revisionist and others have cheated the opposite party no. 2. This allegation, however, does not stand to scrutiny inasmuch as the amount of Rs. 19,25,000/- was to be paid after deducting the applicable TDS. The TDS has already been deposited in the PAN Account of opposite party no. 2 and thus, the allegation does not appear to be correct.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the revisionist and M/s Omex Ltd. were required to give the plot or refund the amount within a period of two years. However, they have refunded the amount only after four and half years.
9. If the revisionist had any grievance with respect to interest, he might have taken other proceedings as would have been advised to him. However, in so far as the complaint case is concerned, the allegation is that opposite party no. 2 was paid Rs. 75,000/- less than what was promised. However, this allegation is absolutely not correct inasmuch as the TDS was to be deducted and TDS was deducted and deposited against the PAN Account of opposite party no. 2.
10. In view thereof, the continuance of the proceedings against the revisionist in pursuance to the summoning order dated 09-02-2017 would be wholly unwarranted and unjustified and it would be an abuse of process of the court. To secure the ends of justice, this court feels that the proceedings are to be quashed. Thus, the revision is allowed.
11. The impugned proceedings as well as the summoning order dated 09-02-2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 13286 of 2015 are quashed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2022
AKS
