Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1273 (ALL)

Tarun Bansal v. State Of UP

2024-05-10

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.27717 of 2017 (State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1397 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.09.2016 with the allegation that the informant-opposite party no. 2 was allured by one Vinod Kumar Bansal for purchase of flat from their friends Pankaj Kumar Gupta and Babita Gupta and aforesaid Vinod Kumar Bansal represented that the aforesaid flat is without any forgery and said flat is not mortgaged. Relying upon the statement of Vinod Kumar Bansal, the opposite party no. 2 had paid Rs.one lac to Vinod Kumar Bansal and an agreement to sale was executed on 24.02.2015. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently as per the allegations in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 02.03.2015, the opposite party no. 2 had paid Rs. 4 lacs to Vinod Kumar Bansal, Tarun Bansal and Ram Autar towards part payment of sale consideration. On 13.04.2015 the opposite party no. 2 had also paid Rs. 15 lacs through cheque and Rs. 1,65,000/-to Vinod Kumar Bansal. As per the allegations, the total sale consideration of Rs. 21,56,500/-was paid to Vinod Kumar Bansal. The payment receipt dated 02.03.2015 is annexed as Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was neither signatory or owner of the flat in question nor in any manner involved in the transaction alongwith Vinod Kumar Bansal. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. and statement of the opposite party no. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation against the applicant is to the extent that the applicant alongwith two co-accused persons namely, Vinod Kumar Bansal and Ram Autar have received Rs. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. and statement of the opposite party no. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation against the applicant is to the extent that the applicant alongwith two co-accused persons namely, Vinod Kumar Bansal and Ram Autar have received Rs. 4 lacs towards sale consideration of the property in question. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the above mentioned amount of Rs. 4 lacs was received by owner of the property in question and receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure-3 at page 37 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that no offence under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. He also submitted that the dispute in the present case so far as the applicant is concerned, is of civil nature and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the accused persons have represented that the property in question was without any mortgage or without any forgery. However, after the payment was given as advance, it was found that the property in question was mortgaged with two banks. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that since the misrepresentation was made by the accused persons which has resulted into paying of the amount to them, therefore, the accused persons are liable to be criminality and the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 5. On query being made to counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as to what are the allegation against the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant states that the allegation against the applicant is that he alongwith Vinod Kumar Bansal, and Ram Autar had received Rs. 4 lacs towards part payment of sale consideration. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the trial court has rightly summoned the applicant and has taken cognizance against the applicant in the present case. 7. 4 lacs towards part payment of sale consideration. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the trial court has rightly summoned the applicant and has taken cognizance against the applicant in the present case. 7. Perusal of the record shows that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.09.2016 by one Suresh Singh and the allegation is that the co-accused Vinod Kumar Bansal has represented the opposite party no. 2 that his relative wanted to sell one flat. Relying upon the statement of Vinod Kumar Bansal, the opposite party no. 2 had paid advance amount of Rs. 5 lacs. The applicant Tarun Agrawal was neither signatory of the agreement to sale dated 24.02.2015, which was executed between the owner of the property in question and opposite party no. 2. Vinod Kumar Bansal and Ram Autar were signatory and witnesses of the aforesaid agreement to sale. It is further to be seen that there is no allegation against the applicant that he has made any misrepresentation with regard to the property in question. The only allegation against the applicant is to the effect that he had received the amount of Rs. 4 lacs alongwith Vinod Kumar Bansal and Ram Autar Bansal. The applicant is prosecuted under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 4 lacs is alleged to have been paid in respect of which an explanation has been given by the applicant that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4 lacs was received by the owner of the property in question and receipt of the same is annexed at page 37 of the paper book. The aforesaid document annexed at page 37 of the paper book has necessarily been stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit however has not denied the aforesaid document in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4 lacs in the counter affidavit. Once the owner has received the amount of Rs. 4 lacs as per the receipt annexed, then it cannot be said that the applicant was involved in any criminal activity. The opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4 lacs in the counter affidavit. Once the owner has received the amount of Rs. 4 lacs as per the receipt annexed, then it cannot be said that the applicant was involved in any criminal activity. Even otherwise there was no allegation with regard to misrepresentation against the applicant in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the opposite party no. 2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has not been able to show any allegation in the statement of opposite party no. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor any evidence in this respect has been adduced before this Court that the applicant was involved in the transaction of the sale consideration. The mediator cannot be proceeded for transaction as owner of the property. Since there is no criminality involved in respect of applicant Tarun Bansal, as such, no offence is made out against the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant Tarun Bansal in respect of Case No.27717 of 2017 (State Vs. Vinod Kumar Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1397 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad are quashed. However, it is made clear that in respect of other co-accused persons, trial may go on and court concerned shall not be influenced by present order.