[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State & Others on 28 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 01.09.2025
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:28.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
C482 No.137 of 2016
(under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Ranjit Singh .........Applicant
Versus
State & others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. S.S. Purohit, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg,
learned for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present C482 application, applicant
has put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 11.09.2014;
cognizance/summoning order dated 03.01.2015 as well as
the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.144 of 2015,
State vs. Ranjit Singh, under Section 420 IPC, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Lala Balbir
grandfather of the applicant was the recorded tenure holder
of the property in-dispute. After the partition in the family,
the property bearing no.72, Rajpur Road, Dehradun fell
into share of Lala Hari Singh, father of the applicant. After
the death of Lala Hari Singh, the mother of the applicant-
Smt. Shanti Devi and the applicant got recorded in the
revenue records in respect of the aforesaid property
comprising Khasra No.16Ka, Kevat No.1, Village Maan
Singh Wala, Pargana Pachwadoon, District Dehradun.
When the applicant was only two years of age, the mother
of the applicant let out the property to erstwhile State of
U.P. for residence cum office of SSP, Dehradun. When the
applicant was around six years of age, a registered sale
deed was executed between the mother of the applicant and
the State through Secretary to the Government on behalf of
Hon'ble Governor for five years w.e.f. 1950. Thereafter, a
subsequent lease deed was executed between the aforesaid
parties. When the State tried to encroach the adjacent
property, the mother of the applicant filed a suit for
possession which was decreed in favour of the mother of
the applicant vide order dated 08.02.1972 in Civil Appeal
No.15 of 1970. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant filed
a petition under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act, No.13 of
1972 seeking enhancement of rent which was allowed by
the learned court. Thereafter, another petition was filed for
enhancement of rent which was again allowed by learned
3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun vide order dated
18.05.1999. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant filed a
suit for eviction bearing Suit No.24 of 2001. The suit was
decreed ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2002. A revision
was filed by the State which was dismissed by this Court
and a subsequent review application was also dismissed.
The monetary part of the aforesaid decree stood satisfied as
the Government and SSP deposited the decreetal amount.
3. The State issued a notification under Land
Acquisition Act and tried to acquire the said property. This
notification was challenged and this Court stayed the
notification vide order dated 29.07.2003 in WPMB No.913
of 2003. But, this Court allowed the State to acquire whole
of the disputed property if it so desires. But, the
Government directed the DGP to vacate and handover the
said property and expressed its disinclination to acquire
the property. The SDM during the aforesaid period
surprisingly on 15.02.2014 alleged that the predecessor of
the applicant were not the owner of the property and
directed Naib Tehsildar to file an FIR. The FIR was filed
under Section 420 IPC and a charge-sheet was filed in
pursuance thereto. The Magistrate took cognizance and
summoned the applicant in Criminal Case No.144 of 2015,
State vs. Ranjit Singh.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the property in-dispute has been a bone of contention
between the parties since long and there have been
multiple civil suits regarding the same. In all of those
proceedings, the State and the SSP have themselves
maintained that the predecessors of the applicant were the
owners of the property and the State was merely a lessee.
But, when all of the courts decided in favour of the
applicant's predecessors, the State very cunningly lodged
the impugned FIR for ulterior motives. He further submits
that the basic ingredient to book a person under Section
420 IPC is missing and this can be found out with a bare
perusal of the FIR. He submits that it is a well settled
proposition of law that in order to constitute an offence
under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredient is the
existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention since the
very inception of the transaction which cannot be the case
in the particular case in hand as the applicant was only
two years of age when the transaction began.
5. He further submits that the initiation of criminal
proceedings at the hand of police are nothing but the
grossest abuse of process of law at the behest of police
authorities in which they are themselves interested which
clearly subjugate the principle of natural justice. In the
particular case in hand, the police is acting as a Judge in
its own case.
6. Learned counsel for the State/respondent
relying upon its counter affidavit submits that the
impugned FIR was lodged on the basis of report of the Naib
Tehsildar and the police on investigation and after taking
statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. filed
the charge-sheet which due diligence as the statements
given by the witnesses fully corroborated the prosecution
version. He further submits that on investigation, it was
found that the mother of the applicant was not the owner of
the property in-dispute and the property belonged to a
Muslim family which has long back settled abroad and
their successors are not traceable, therefore, the property
has come to the Government by way of escheat and the
Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against the
applicant.
7. Applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submits that
the FIR in-question has been lodged by the authorities to
circumvent the eviction order already passed against the
State Government by competent court of law. He submits
that it is wrong to assert that the mother of the applicant
was not the actual owner of the property in-question as the
State Government has itself taken the disputed property in
lease from the mother of the applicant.
8. Having heard the rival contentions of learned
counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the case in hand is a classic case of abuse of process
of law. The State authorities are blowing hot and cold
against their own statements. They have since the very
inception of the civil disputes have themselves maintained
that the applicant and his predecessors were the owner of
the property and the State was merely a lessee but when it
transpired that the State could be evicted from the
property, they lodged an FIR which is perverse, frivolous
and vexatious to say the least as even if all the allegations
of the State are accepted for a moment then also the
applicant will be protected by the principle of doli incapax
as the applicant was only two years of age when the lease
was granted in the favour of SSP Dehradun. As he could
not have formed any intention because of his tender age,
therefore, he cannot be said to have committed the offence
of cheating.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has
held that the utmost essential element of cheating is that
the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce
the other party to deliver the property should have been
from the very beginning which could not have been in this
case. Therefore, this Court is constrained to use its extra
ordinary powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
prevent the abuse of process of law which is happening in
this case. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 11.09.2014;
cognizance/summoning order dated 03.01.2015 as well as
the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.144 of 2015,
State vs. Ranjit Singh, under Section 420 IPC, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun
shall stand quashed.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court
for compliance.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.11.2025
Ravi
