Faizan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4460 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Faizan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 September, 2025

                                                              2025:UHC:8488



 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Appli. (C-482) No. 1709 of 2016


Faizan                                                  -------Applicant

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another
                                                 -----------Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Tarun Mohan, Brief Holder for the State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.(oral)

Present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the impugned charge-sheet dated 12.04.2016, summoning order dated 27.07.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1183 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 129 of 2015), State vs. Faizan, under Section 420 of IPC, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. As per the averments made in the Application, an FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 with the allegations that the applicant sold two plots being Plot No. 36 and 37 situated at Village Sisona Mustahakam Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.10.2012 and 25.10.2013 and after the said sale-deeds, name of the complainant got mutated in the revenue record and thereafter complainant constructed houses over the said plot. It is further alleged that one

2025:UHC:8488 Ragib Hasan @ Pappu, Mannan S/o Imran, Puneet S/o Kanwar Sain and 5-6 other persons came at the said place; started to quarrel with complainant stating that the said plots belong to them; also snatched one of the sale-deed of the said plot and sold the said house to other persons. The said FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 129 of 2015, under Sections 386, 420 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that on plain reading of the FIR it would reveal that no ingredients of Section 420 IPC are made out against the applicant.

4. Notices were issued to the private respondent no.2, which was served to the respondent no.2 in the year 2021, but he did not choose to put in appearance.

5. On perusal of the complaint, it is revealed that as per the contention of the respondent no.2 some friends of the complainant came to his house after construction was completed and quarreled with him by stating that the land belongs to them. Admittedly, the sale-deeds were executed in the year 2012 and 2013 by the complainant, and the same were registered before the Sub Registrar, Roorkee and the name of the applicant was also mutated in the revenue record. The complaint was lodged by the respondent no.2 in the year 2015 and there is no allegation that the land which was sold to him does not belong to the applicant or the registry of the plot was not done after payment of money, thus the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are totally missing. The summoning order does not disclose any reason or even, prima facie, opinion of the court as to why the applicant

2025:UHC:8488 is to be summoned under Section 420 of the IPC.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Food Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held in para 28 of the judgment as hereunder:-

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C.Palanisamy and others (supra) in para 39 and 47 has held as hereunder:

"39. This Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the

2025:UHC:8488 conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was held in this case:

(SCC P.703, para 7)

"7. .....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be

2025:UHC:8488 impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.

47. In the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 336, this Court has held as under:( SCC Pages 338-39, paras 6-7)

"6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured the complainant that when they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition of complaint. It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the Consumer Forum in relation to the claim of Rs 4,20,000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.

7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either

2025:UHC:8488 under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC which it has erroneously refused."

8. In view of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the C-482 Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 12.04.2016, summoning order dated 27.07.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1183 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 129 of 2015), State vs. Faizan, under Section 420 of IPC, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 19.09.2025 Kaushal