Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 384 (UTT)

POORAN CHAND GUPTA v. NARESH KUMAR ARORA

2013-06-26

U.C.Dhyani

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) The applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the impugned order dated 28.11.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in criminal revision no. 157 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Arora vs State) and the order dated 04.12.2008, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case no. 1810 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Arora vs Puran Chand Gupta and others) summoning the applicants under Section 420, 120B of IPC as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1810 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Arora vs Puran Chand Gupta and others), pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun. 2. A criminal complaint case was filed by the respondent against the accused persons/applicants for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120B of IPC. After recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., accused persons were summoned to face the trial. After evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., proceedings against the accused persons were dropped under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., vide order dated 18.10.2008. Aggrieved against said order of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, a revision was moved before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, who found a prima facie case against the accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC. The revision court remanded the matter back and the learned Magistrate after having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, summoned them to face the trial under Section 420 and 120B of IPC, vide order dated 04.12.2008. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 04.12.2008, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed. 3. The complainant/respondent was issued notice, which was personally served upon him on 01.03.2009, but none appeared for the complainant/respondent despite service of notice as far back as on 01.03.2009. 4. The sum and substance of the complaint filed by the respondent is that the accused persons were the co-owners in possession of a piece of land situated in village Niranjanpur, Pargana Kendriya Doon, Dehradun. Said piece of land was shown to the complainant and accused induced him to purchase a portion of said land. Accused persons told the complainant that said land was free from all encumbrances and there was no dispute regarding the ownership of said land. Accused persons made the complainant to believe that they had right to sell said land. Said piece of land was shown to the complainant and accused induced him to purchase a portion of said land. Accused persons told the complainant that said land was free from all encumbrances and there was no dispute regarding the ownership of said land. Accused persons made the complainant to believe that they had right to sell said land. A sale deed was executed by the accused persons in favour of the complainant and his wife on 30.03.2007. Possession of said land was also delivered to the complainant and his wife. The complainant also got his name mutated in the revenue records. But, when the complainant started raising the boundary wall on said land, one Ramsukh s/o Mangal came to the complainant and informed him that a dispute relating to said land was pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Nainital. Ramsukh s/o Mangal also informed the complainant that the parties to the dispute were directed to maintain status quo. The allegation against the accused persons is that they had no right to sell said land to the complainant and his wife, who have incurred huge loss. The accused persons allegedly cheated the complainant. 5. This fact is under no dispute that the land in question was mutated in the name of the complainant and his wife. Further it is also admitted that the accused persons were the co-owners in possession of the land in question. A suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, who passed an order on 03.02.2007, against which an appeal was pending before the Hon’ble High Court, in which the parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo. Thus it is abundantly clear on the basis of the facts brought on record that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. Accused persons/applicants have filed the certified copy of the plaint, which was registered as O.S. No. 436 of 2006 in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun (Annexure-1 to the present petition). The certified copy of the order passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) while disposing of applications 6-C and 38-C are also enclosed with the present petition. The copy of the order passed by this Court on 20.03.2007 is also enclosed. The parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo. The certified copy of the order passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) while disposing of applications 6-C and 38-C are also enclosed with the present petition. The copy of the order passed by this Court on 20.03.2007 is also enclosed. The parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo. The A.O. was filed by Ramsukh, Prem Singh and Ved Prakash against Pooran Chand Gupta and 14 others (applicants) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The copy of sale deed which was executed by the applicants is also enclosed. 6. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, that where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a ‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of criminality’ and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was cautioned that the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. Although the High Court should not unduly interfere, but when the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent the patent miscarriage of justice, the Court should step in and interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court feels that such jurisdiction should be exercised in the instant case, in as much as the dispute in the instant case predominantly gave rise to a civil wrong, with hardly any element of criminality. 7. The application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in criminal revision no. 157 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Arora vs State) and the order dated 04.12.2008, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in criminal case no. 1810 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Arora vs Puran Chand Gupta and others) summoning the applicants under Section 420, 120B of IPC as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1810 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Arora vs Puran Chand Gupta and others), pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun are hereby quashed.