Allahabad High Court
Asha Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17228 of 2022
Applicant :- Asha Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By moving this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made to quash the charge-sheet dated 15.12.2021, cognizance order dated 17.01.2022 and entire proceeding of Case No.4692 of 2022, State Vs. Anup Kumar Pandey and others, arising out of Case Crime No.399 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that a sale deed was executed by the applicant alongwith other co-sharer in favour of opposite party no.2 for consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and four cheques were given by the opposite party in this regard. All the four cheques of Rs. 80,00,000/- were dishonoured regarding which a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is pending against the opposite party no.2 and after receiving the notice in that case, after three years of the alleged incident, present FIR has been lodged so the prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet and cognizance order passed by the court concerned.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the land which is said to have sold by the applicant and other co-sharer to opposite party no.2 had already been sold in the year 2009 by them to someone else. They are habitual of cheating the persons. In this regard, the applicant has been once sent to jail earlier.
From perusal of the record, it is clear that the applicant sold a property to opposite party alongwith other co-sharer and got four cheques of total consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/- which were bounced. It is the case of the opposite party that this property was sold through a sale deed in the year 2009 to some other person by the applicant and other co-sharers when the opposite party no.2 went to the applicant and other co-sharer to demand his Rs. 80 lakhs/ possession of the plot in question on 01.08.2021 he was abused and given a threat of life, thus, it is clear on the basis of facts mentioned in the FIR and the facts put forth by the applicant that the matters regarding property/sale deed/ payment of consideration are pending between the parties. According to opposite party no.2, he has been cheated by the applicant and other co-sharer as the property sold to him had already been sold to someone else in the year 2009 and when he demanded his money back he was given threat, so in my opinion, the dispute is totally factual which cannot be decided by this Court at this stage.
In M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Vs. Md Sharaful Haque and another, judgment dated 1.11.2004, the Apex Court held that exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule, which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. All Courts whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provisions, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice.
In the case, in hand, the dispute is factual in nature and this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry regarding the facts of the case at this stage.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.6.2022
Radhika
