Allahabad High Court
Sachin Alias Bhoori vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114423
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*****
(SL No.14)
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40035 of 2024
Applicant :- Sachin Alias Bhoori
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Jha,Pragati,Shaili Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 01.04.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 149 of 2021 (M.S. Ansari vs. Anwari and Others) under Sections 420, 504 & 506(2) I.P.C., P.S.- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandhshahr.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that a complaint case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the applicant, alongwith one Iklakh, had informed the opposite party no.2 that there is a land in the name of Anwari w/o Haneef, r/o Baroda, Police Station- Sikandrabad, which he can purchase. Relying upon the aforesaid, the opposite party no.2 had entered into an agreement to sell with the said Anwari w/o Haneef. Relying upon the assurance given by the applicant and one Iklakh and in pursuance of the execution of the said agreement to sell, he had paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to said Anwari, in the presence of the applicant herein. The date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed between the parties as 05.09.2021. When they did not execute the sale deed in favor of the opposite party no.2, then, the opposite party no.2 doubted about the genuineness of the ownership of the said Anwari w/o Haneef. He inquired about the same and it is transpired that the real owner of the said property was one Anwari w/o Ikram, r/o Siddqui Nagar, Gulati Road, P.S.- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahr and not Anwari w/o Haneef, as they had claimed. When he demanded the said money back from the applicant and the said Anwari etc., then they abused and a complaint was made to Police Station- Sikandrabad, where on 24.09.2021, the police called them and it was agreed that they will pay back the said amount to the opposite party no.2 on 02.10.2021 or 05.10.2021, however, they did not return the said amount. Further, complaints were made to the SSP etc., and when no action was taken the instant complaint case was lodged.
4. In support of his allegations, the opposite party no.2, has examined the witnesses Brijesh Kumar and Prashant under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who have supported the allegations as made in the complaint. Subsequently thereto, vide order dated 06.04.2022, the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicant herein alongwith the other co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 406, 425 and 504 I.P.C. This court, on an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 42193 of 2022 by the applicant herein, taken note of the judgments of the Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, 1998 (5) SCC 749 that the accused cannot be summoned for both the offenses including Section 406 as well as 420 I.P.C., simultaneously and set aside the said summoning order, recording that the same was passed by the court below in cryptic manner and does not stand the test laid down by this Court and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for passing a fresh order in light of the observations made in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2023. Subsequent thereto, vide impugned order dated 01.04.2024, the applicant herein alongwith other co-accused persons have been summoned for offenses under Sections 420, 504 and 506(2) I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the agreement to sell executed between Anwari and the opposite party no.2, neither the applicant is a witness nor a party and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instance case. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case as well as the summoning order dated 01.04.2020.
6. Per contra, learn A.G.A. submits that the applicant and Iklakh are the main conspirators, who had misled the opposite party no.2 to enter into an agreement to sell with Anwari w/o Haneef, who was not the actual owner of the property in question. Furthermore, the applicant had already assured their involvement before the police on 24.09.2024 and had assured that the amount advanced by the opposite party no.2, shall be returned on 02.10.2021 and 05.10.2021 and the applicant and the other accused persons have failed to return the said amount to the opposite party no.2. The allegations are duly supported by independent witnesses, who were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In view of the allegations as made, supported by the witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Therefore, the learned magistrate having recorded its satisfaction has summoned the applicant herein for the aforesaid offenses. Therefore, there is no illegality in the summoning order against the applicant herein.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the applicant as well as one Iklakh, were the main persons who had introduced Anwari w/o Haneef to the opposite party no. 2 and misled that she is the real owner of the property in question. Relying on the statements of the applicant and Iklakh, the opposite party no.2 had entered into an agreement to sell and had advanced a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. Later, it was realized that Anwari w/o Haneef is not the real owner of the property. Rather, Anwari w/o Ikram is the real owner of the property in question. Therefore, from the allegations as made in the complaint the applicant and Iklakh who had misled the opposite party no.2 and thereby made him to part with a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, which they had assured to return, but which has not been returned to the opposite party no.2 and they have also abused and tried to assault the opposite party no.2. Therefore, the offences under Sections 420, 504 and 506(2) IP.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
8. In view thereof, this Court do not find any illegality in the summoning order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bulandshahr. Thus, the instant application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2025
Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
