Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3 (UTT)

Mahesh Chandra Lohani v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-01-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
ORDER The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet (annexure 5), summoning order dated 09.11.2010 (annexure 6) as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3263 of 2010, captioned as State v. Mahesh Chandra Lohani, under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. 2. Informant (respondent No. 2 herein) lodged a first information report against the accused (applicant herein) on 03.10.2010 at PS Haldwani, which was registered as case crime No. 463 of 2010, under Sections 420 and 406, IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant for the selfsame offences. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet and the accused was summoned to face the trial for the offences complaint of against him. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was filed. 3. On 03.02.2011, this Court passed an order to the following effect: “Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that the petitioner shall repay the whole amount of Rupees Twenty One Lacs within a period of one month, as an advance amount for the sale of the property in dispute. 4. The same was reiterated on 22.05.2013 as follows: “On 03.02.2011, statement was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that whole amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- shall be paid within one month to the complainant. Having recorded such undertaking, notices were issued to the complainant. Mr. Devendra Pant, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that till date petitioner has not made any payment, as undertook by him on 03.02.2011, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks and is granted a week time to obtain instructions and to make statement. 5. Still, no such amount has been paid by the applicant to the respondent No. 2. 6. According to the first information report, an agreement to sell was entered into between the applicant and respondent No. 2 on 11.07.2009 regarding the sale of shops and residential house. Earnest money was also given to the applicant by the respondent No. 2. The balance was to be paid within two years. It was further agreed to between the parties that the sale-deed shall be got executed by the applicant (and wife) in favour by respondent No. 2, but despite repeated requests, applicant refrained from doing so. Earnest money was also given to the applicant by the respondent No. 2. The balance was to be paid within two years. It was further agreed to between the parties that the sale-deed shall be got executed by the applicant (and wife) in favour by respondent No. 2, but despite repeated requests, applicant refrained from doing so. A registered notice was given by the respondent No. 2 to the applicant on 06.08.2010, but to no avail. Had the respondent No. 2 been in the knowledge of the fact that the applicant will cheat him, he would not have given earnest money to the applicant. 7. Prima facie it appears that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, but how can any Court ignore the statement given by learned counsel for the applicant on 03.02.2011 and 22.05.2013? Applicant has thus acquiesced the allegations of the respondent No. 2. 8. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. 9. This Court does not consider it to be a fit case to interfere in the proceedings of the Court below in exercise of it inherent jurisdiction. 10. Application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is dismissed. Liberty is, however, granted to learned counsel for the applicant to raise all the factual pleas before the Court below including the fact that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, for obtaining his discharge/ acquittal, at an appropriate stage. 11. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the applicant, the bail application of the applicant is directed to be decided by the Court concerned as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay, subject to applicant surrender on or before 31st January, 2014. Petition dismissed.