Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Miyan Rizvi & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 20 November, 2020
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2665 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohd. Miyan Rizvi & Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Permeshwar Dutt Tewari,Kamlesh Kumari,Vijay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Sri Amjad Siddiqui, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.2, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Amjad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party No.2.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the summoning order dated 3.9.2020 and charge sheet dated 12.4.2020.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in pursuance to an agreement made on the stamp of Rs.100/- between the parties, a transaction of the property of Rs.66 Lakhs was made. In the agreement, it was provided that the sale deed be executed within one month on making total payment to the petitioners. He next submitted that Rs.23 Lakhs were paid to the petitioners and rest of the amount was assured to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. He next submitted that almost two years passed and no sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant, therefore, with the consent of the complainant, the said property was sold out on the request to return the paid money back to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the complaint lodged against the petitioners is bogus and has no sanctity in the eyes of law. His last submission is that the lower court, without applying its mind and without taking into consideration the totality of the case, has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that it is a clear cut case of fraud. In case it is accepted that the petitioners were paid Rs.23 Lakhs, prior to selling out the property, the amount would have been paid back to the complainant with interest and then the property would have been sold out. Their next submission in this regard is that the petitioners have committed fraud with the complainant, therefore, there is no error in law in issuing the order of summon, which is impugned in the present petition.
I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
On perusal of the material on record, it is reflected that an agreement on Rs.100/- stamp paper was made between the parties and in pursuance thereof, Rs.23 Lakhs were paid to the petitioners. In case, the agreement was not complied with within the time stipulated, it would have cancelled automatically and the petitioners would have returned the advance money back to the complainant along with interest and thereafter, would have proceeded to make further settlement of the property through registered sale deed.
In the present case, prima facie, it is established that without paying back the amount received from the complainant, the petitioners proceeded to make registered sale deed to some other person and it is admitted case of the petitioners that they have not returned the money back to the complainant till date.
In view of the reasons assigned above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2020 Gautam