Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 104 (ALL)

Neera v. State of U. P.

2016-01-08

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 666 of 2010 (Kela vs. Mithlesh & others) under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Baraut, District - Baghpat pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat. Further prayer has been made to stay the impugned order dated 14.9.2015 passed in the said complaint case. 2. Heard Shri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the entire record. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are attracted against the applicant. She is the bonafide purchaser of the disputed land. In fact applicant has been cheated by one Smt. Mithlesh, who had executed the sale-deed in favour of the applicant after receiving consideration amount. The applicant has not been delivered possession over the disputed land. The concerned Magistrate rejected the discharge application on insufficient ground. This court in the application under Section 482 CrPC No. 16779 of 2010 specifically directed to the court concerned to decide the discharge application on merits but the concerned Magistrate by the order dated 14.9.2015 without applying judicial mind illegally rejected the application observing that offence of cheating is made out against the applicant. It is clear from the facts of the present case itself that the applicant could not be prosecuted for the offences levelled against her. It is further submitted that the impugned order also suffers from illegality and infirmity. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the concerned Magistrate has considered the entire submissions in detail in the order dated 14.9.2015 and has rightly observed that the defences taken by the applicant can only be decided after collecting evidence. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the impugned order. 6. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant was summoned in compliance of the revisional court order passed in criminal revision no. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the impugned order. 6. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant was summoned in compliance of the revisional court order passed in criminal revision no. 109 of 2009 thereafter the applicant had approached this Court by filing aforesaid application under Section 482 CrPC and this Court vide order dated 13.5.2010 disposed of the said application directing the applicant to move discharge application within a specified period. In compliance of the said order, the applicant moved discharge application which was rejected on 14.9.2015. In the compliant, role of the applicant has been assigned that she had obtained sale-deed of the disputed land in her name in connivance with other co-accused. If the role assigned to the applicant is compared with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is evident that this question that as to whether the applicant is bonafide purchaser or she has purchased the disputed land in connivance with the other co-accused hatching conspiracy can only be decided after collecting evidence, which can appropriately be done before the court below. Further, from the material available on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made-out against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. There is no requirement of law to analyze the evidence at this stage at par with trial. 7. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is accordingly dismissed.