Amit Sehgal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3263 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1467 of 2023
Amit Sehgal                                            ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents
Present:-
             Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
             for the State.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.554 of

2023, under Sections 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and

506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar,

with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the respondent no.3, the

informant, entered into an agreement to sale with the

petitioner. The petitioner had agreed to sell a property to the

informant at a consideration of Rs. 68,55,000/-. The

petitioner had received entire sale consideration except Rs.

18,55,000/- which were to be given at the time of execution of

sale deed. The agreement was to remain valid till 14.06.2023.

The petitioner did not execute sale deed. Instead, on

25.04.2023, he sold the property to some other person.

Thereby cheated the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that no offence under Section 467 IPC is made out, even if the

FIR is accepted in its entirety. He would also submit that the

petitioner is ready and willing to return the consideration; in

fact, it was a loan transaction; the petitioner has taken a loan

from the informant, and as a security to the loan, the

agreement was executed; there was no intention, as such, to

transfer the ownership of the property.

5. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so.

6. The FIR records that the petitioner has forged

certain documents. What are those documents, admittedly,

this Court cannot record any finding on that aspect. It is the

admitted case of the petitioner that as per agreement to sale,

executed between him and the informant, the property was to

be transferred by the petitioner to the informant for a large

consideration. Large portion of the consideration has already

been transferred to the petitioner, but, the petitioner, during

the subsistence of the agreement, which was to expire in the

month of June, 2023, executed a sale deed in favour of some

other person. Does it mean that the petitioner has the

intention to cheat the informant since inception? Has the

petitioner forged any document? If so, what were those

documents? These all factors would find scrutiny during

investigation or trial, as the case may be. At this stage, the

way transactions were done by the petitioner restrains this

Court from making any interference. It is a matter, which

definitely requires to be investigated. Therefore, this Court is

of the view that there is no reason to make any interference.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage

of admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.10.2023 Ravi Bisht