Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 382 (ALL)

Jeet Pal v. State of U. P.

2017-01-31

BACHCHOO LAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Bachchoo Lal,J. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure-7) and proceeding of Complaint Case No.109 of 2012 (Gajendra Singh vs. Jeet Pal and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Masuri, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the wife of applicant no.1 namely Smt. Shimla Devi purchased a plot of 100 sq. yard from its registered owner Sushil of Khasra No.57 situated in village Dasna, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad through registered sale deed dated 22.06.2011. In November, 2014, the complainant and his friend came at the house of applicant no.1 and desired to purchase 60 sq. yard land from the said plot. The applicant no.1 and his wife agreed to sell 60 sq. yard land of Rs.6,47,000/- and the complainant gave Rs.47,000/- and assured to pay the rest amount Rs.6,00,000/- at the time of sale deed before Sub-Registrar office. On 25.11.2014 the wife of applicant no.1 executed sale deed in favour of complainant and the complainant assured the wife of applicant no.1 to pay the consideration Rs.6,00,000/- on the next day but the complainant did not pay the consideration to the wife of applicant no.1. The wife of applicant no.1 filed a Civil Suit No.92 of 2015 for cancellation of sale deed. Only to make pressure for compromise in civil suit the complainant has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to lodge the F.I.R., the same was treated as complaint case and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned to face trial. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence. False story has been concocted by the complainant. No offence is made out against the applicants. There is no injury report on record to support the prosecution version. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment. The impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2016 is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be quashed. No offence is made out against the applicants. There is no injury report on record to support the prosecution version. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case only for the purpose of harassment. The impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2016 is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be quashed. On the other hand learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2016 and there is no ground to quash the proceeding of aforementioned case. A perusal of record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2016 and the proceeding of aforementioned case therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.