Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46275
Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3413 of 2025
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetla Sahai Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing charge sheet dated 15-10-2024, cognizance order dated 18-12-2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 10079 of 2024 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar) arising out of charge-sheet dated 15-10-2024, arising out of case crime no. 0424 of 2023, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sector 24, Noida, Gautambudh Nagar.
3. The dispute arises from a notary agreement executed on 29.03.2016 between the applicant and respondent no.3 for the purchase of House No. A-92, Sector-52, Noida, wherein Rs. 50 lakhs was paid via cheque, followed by an additional Rs. 20 lakhs through RTGS on 10.06.2016. The sale deed was to be executed by October 2016. However, no grievances were raised until 07.08.2023, when the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., resulting in the registration of an F.I.R. on 19.09.2023. The applicant contends that the allegations are baseless, as the complainant remained silent for seven years without notifying higher authorities before seeking an F.I.R. The investigation initially concluded with a final report on 10.11.2023, observing that no prior complaint was made. However, upon the complainant?s protest petition dated 10.07.2024, the learned Magistrate ordered further investigation, and thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed on 15.10.2024, thereafter, the court below took cognizance on 18.12.2024.
4. By means of the instant application, the applicant has challenged the charge-sheet, the cognizance order, as well as the entire proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the dispute is civil in nature, arising from a contractual agreement, and has been maliciously given a criminal colour. Furthermore, this Court granted interim relief in favour of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16722 of 2023 until the submission of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the essential ingredients of Section 406 IPC are not made out. Additionally, it is submitted that opposite party no.2 is the husband of the aggrieved person and till date, he has not initiated any civil proceedings , nor has he filed any suit for specific performance. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the instant application has been filed solely to exert undue pressure on the applicant.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that the applicant took money from opposite party no.2 and subsequently sold the property to someone else. It is a clear case of fraud, and from a perusal of the F.I.R., it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The Court below has rightly summoned the applicant, and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order or the ongoing proceedings.
6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
"(i) 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.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.4.2025
pks
