Allahabad High Court
Krishna Prakashdhar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93045
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8926 of 2021
Applicant :- Krishna Prakashdhar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Kumar Srivastava,G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the summoning order date 07.03.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1801900 of 2019 (Sreechand Rajbhar vs. Krishna Prakashdhar and others), under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. at Police Station-Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-13, Azamgarh.
3. The factual matrix of the instant case is that applicants and opposite party no. 2 are the resident of same village. As the land of applicant was situated near the house of the opposite party no. 2, both the parties have entered into an agreement for sale of land dated 11.07.2014 and opposite party no. 2 had paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- in this regard. Thereafter, applicants had requested opposite party no. 2 to get the land executed in his favour through registered sale deed, in this regard, applicants had sent legal notices on 15.11.2016 and 20.12.2016 to the opposite party no. 2 for executing the land in his favour, but opposite party no. 2 ignored the same. In absence of his consent and also after lapse of 3 years, applicants had executed a registered sale deed in favour of third party on 05.05.2017. When the opposite party no. 2 came to know about this sale, instead of preferring a civil case, the opposite party no. 2 had filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 12.01.2018 before the Magistrate, Azamgarh, whereupon learned Magistrate after recording the statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. issued summons against the applicants. Left with no other option, applicants have preferred the instant application challenging the validity of summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that just to harass and put pressure upon the applicants, the instant proceedings have been initiated by the opposite party no. 2. He further submits that it is pure case of civil dispute, in which applicants cannot be dragged into a criminal proceedings. He further submits that if opposite party-2 have any grievance against the applicants, he may approach the appropriate forum or file a civil suit for redressal of his grievance.
5. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a serious note on the issue, that it has now become a trend to initiate criminal proceedings trying to cloak the civil dispute and such practices may be restricted. He further submits that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicants is pure abuse of process of law and has been initiated just to put pressure on the applicants, hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposes the application and contends that the proof of sending the legal notice is doubtful. He further submits that the agreement entered into between the parties does not have any mention with regard to the time for execution of the sale deed. He further submits that since a prima facie case was made out against the applicants, the trial court has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. He further submits that the defence raised by the applicants can be raised at the stage of trial after adducing evidence.
7. Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the case in hand, it is apparent that initially the applicants have entered into an agreement of sale of land after receiving a token money. The opposite party no. 2 neither executed the sale deed nor paid the balance amount, in spite of reminder given by the applicants. Thereafter, after lapse of three years, the applicants sold the property to a third party. After execution of sale deed, opposite party no. 2 had initiated criminal proceedings by filing an application under section 156(3), in which summons were issued, which has been assailed herein.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that civil dispute cannot be cloaked with criminal dispute and this case is a classic example where a civil dispute is given a colour of criminal dispute. Moreover, in this case even assuming the allegations levelled by opposite party No. 2 is correct, still no prima facie case can be made out against the applicants.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanti and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2023 6 SCC 109 has categorically held that "A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings". In the matter of G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (2) SCC 636 the Apex Court had observed that "it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature". In furtherance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telangana, (2023) 2 SCC 195 has further held that civil dispute cannot be cloaked with criminal proceeding and any such proceeding initiated and followed up, is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.
11. In the instant matter, it is apparent that the case is of pure civil nature, wherein the sale deed that has been executed by the applicant which is under challenge and the matter is still sub-judice before the civil court.
12. In view of aforesaid facts and discussions and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti (Supra), G. Sagar Suri (supra) and R. Nagender Yadav (supra), the instant application is hereby allowed. Consequently, the summoning order date 07.03.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1801900 of 2019 (Sreechand Rajbhar vs. Krishna Prakashdhar and others), under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. at Police Station-Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-13, Azamgarh are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 22.05.2023
Bhanu
