Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2603 (ALL)

RAVINDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-08-27

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and for respondent No. 2 and the learned AGA for respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) for quashing the proceeding of Case No. 3582 of 2008 (State v. Satish and others) arising out of Crime No. 1253 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that one Rohtas was the owner of the land, detailed in the FIR. He had executed an agreement for sale in favour of the wife of respondent No. 2 and the wife of one Satish in regard to that land and received a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lacs as an earnest money. During the continuance of the agreement for sale, the aforesaid Rohtas executed a sale-deed in favour of the applicant Ravindra, who happens to be the brother-in-law of Satish. The main grievance of the respondent no 2, as alleged in the FIR, is that the applicant got executed the sale-deed knowing well that the agreement for sale had already been executed. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the averments made in the FIR and the facts stated in the Police report, no criminal charge is made out against the applicant. The dispute is of civil nature. If the applicant got executed the sale-deed in his favour despite the fact that there was already an agreement for sale, he has not committed any forgery or cheating with the respondent No. 2. The proper course for respondent No. 2 was to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and had to challenge the sale-deed in that case. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 very frankly conceded that a civil suit has been filed and is pending in the civil Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in rebuttal submitted that in the sale-deed the factum of existence of the agreement for sale has been mentioned, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser. 6. The sale-deed in favour of the applicant is not alleged to be a forged document. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in rebuttal submitted that in the sale-deed the factum of existence of the agreement for sale has been mentioned, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser. 6. The sale-deed in favour of the applicant is not alleged to be a forged document. It is alleged that the sale-deed has no legal sanctity in view of the fact that there was already an agreement for sale in favour of the respondent No. 2 and the wife of one Satish. If the applicant got executed a sale-deed in his favour, even knowing well regarding the agreement for sale, he cannot be said to have committed any forgery. In my opinion the dispute seems to be a dispute of civil nature. The proper course for the respondent No. 2 and his wife was to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and to challenge the impugned sale-deed in that suit. Therefore, the criminal prosecution is not tenable. It may also be mentioned that in the sale-deed executed in favour of the applicant, the facts with regard to a compromise between the seller Rohtas and the wife of the respondent No. 2 and the wife of Satish have been mentioned, according to which the seller Rohtas had repaid Rs. Three lac to the respondent No. 2, who agreed not to press the agreement for sale. In view of this averment, it cannot be contended that the applicant acted in a fraudulent manner. It appears that the applicant believed that the dispute between the seller Rohtas and the respondent No. 2 and Satish had been settled, so he got the sale-deed executed in his favour. 7. In my opinion, the dispute seems to be of civil nature and no criminal intent exists against the applicant, therefore, the proceeding of the criminal case cannot be permitted to continue and its continuance would be nothing except an abuse of the process of law. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are quashed against the applicant Ravindra. ————