Allahabad High Court
Ram Sewak Sharma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 13 November, 2024
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76261
Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9333 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Sewak Sharma And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The present application has been filed with the following prayers:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.8100/2024, Crime No.265/2022, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, styled as State vs. Ram Sewak and others as well as impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2024 and charge sheet dated 22.11.2022 as contained in annexure no.1 and 2 to this petition."
3. On 23.10.2024 following order was passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.8100/2024, Case Crime No.265/2022 under Sections 420 I.P.C., Police Station Gangaghat, Unnao.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the informant, who is son of the recorded tenure holder of the land in question with the allegation that his mother was abducted by the accused persons and thereafter sale deed in question was obtained and later on, she was eliminated. During the course of investigation, recorded tenure holder/mother of the informant was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she categorically stated that she was ill and requested to her sons for facilitating her treatment but they denied and told that she may sell out the property and ensure her treatment. Thereafter, she started searching purchasers, then Ram Sevak Sharma met her and she expressed her willingness to sell the property and the property in question was sold out with sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and sale deed was executed by the recorded tenure holder in favour of Ram Sevak, who paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. He also submits that Rs.30,000/- was invested in her treatment and rest of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was kept in a box but lock of the box was broken by her son & grand daughter and she was also beaten by them but this statement was not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. He also submits that no ingredient was found of cheating, in case the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is treated as true.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant and submits that charge sheet has already been filed and all these defence can be entertained at the appropriate stage.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application including the statement of recorded tenure holder/mother of the informant, she has categorically denied the prosecution story but the Investigating Officer failed to consider the statement of mother of the informant, who is seller of the property in question.
6. List this case on 13.11.2024 at 11:30 A.M.
7. On the next date, Circle Officer, P.S. Gangaghat, Unnao shall appear before this Court alongwith the complete case diary.
8. Until further order, impugned proceeding shall remain stayed."
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Ms Sonam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sri Ram Prakash, the then Investigating Officer of the case in question are present. The Investigating Officer after reading the statement of victim has conceded that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that proper treatment to the recorded tenure holder was not being facilitated by her sons, then she sold the property in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which she invested Rs.30,000/- and rest of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was kept in a box but the same was taken away by her sons and thereafter on the basis of incorrect facts the FIR in question was lodged. During the course of investigation, statement of recorded tenure holder was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she admitted that the property was sold out for getting her proper treatment, therefore no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and has requested for kind indulgence of this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and has submitted that all these facts can be considered by the trial court but he does not dispute the fact that victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she stated that property was sold out to the applicant after getting sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents and statement of victim that proper treatment was not being facilitated by her sons, then she sold the property in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and there is no ingredient for making out a offence under Section 420 IPC, in such circumstances, the Investigating Officer has wrongly submitted the charge sheet without considering the statement of victim, namely, Chandrakala. The statement of victim is as under:-
"???? ???? ??????... ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????"
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No.8100/2024, arising out of Crime No.265/2022, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Ganga Ghat, District Unnao, as well as impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2024 and charge sheet dated 22.11.2022 are quashed.
9. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer of concerned police station.
the Order Date :- 13.11.2024
Renu/-
