Allahabad High Court
Anuj Gupta And Others vs State Of Up Others on 9 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110869 AFR Reserved on 08.07.2024 Delivered on 09.07.2024 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 194 of 2024 Applicant :- Anuj Gupta And Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Rishi Kant Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. In the present case parties have negotiated to execute a sale deed with regard of certain plot. Complainant in pursuance of negotiation has paid some money in advance. After much negotiation finally a sale deed was executed by applicants in favour of wife of Complainant. However, the dispute remained about adjustment of some money.
2. It is further revealed from facts of present case that parties have further negotiated to execute another sale deed and finally a sale deed was prepared. However, again a dispute arose with regard to area of land. According to Complainant it ought to be 17x70 sq. ft. whereas as per applicants the area was about 8x70 sq. ft. and ultimately sale deed was not executed. It was alleged by Complainant that neither sale of larger area was executed nor money was adjusted nor it was returned back.
3. In aforesaid circumstances, Complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging above referred allegations and that when Complainant asked to applicants to return the money which was not adjusted, they extended threats.
4. Aforesaid application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was considered as a complaint and statement of Complainant as well as witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Relevant statement of Complainant is reproduced hereinafter:
"अनुज व अतुल प्रपर्टी डीलिंग का काम करते हैं। इन्होने मुझे बताया कि मैं आई०टी०आई० चौराहे के पास जमीन खरीद रहे हैं और अगर मैं भी पैसे दे दूं तो खरीद रेट पर ही ये लोग मुझे प्लाट दे देगे। मैने विश्वास कर 10 लाख के 2 चेक विक्रेत विकास शर्मा के नाम के दिनांक 23.07.21 को देवेश दीक्षित को दे दिये। पांच महीने बीत जाने पर जब कोई प्लाट नही मिला तो मैने अनुज व अतुल से पूछा तो बोले की उस जमीन पर तो झगडा है हम आपको प्रतापनेर कचौरा रोड पर प्लाट दे दूंगा जहां मैने जमीन खरीद कर प्लाटिंग कर रहा हूँ। उसके लिए मै मानग वो बोले कि ये पैसा जो दे दिया है वो एडजस्ट कर लेगे। तो 3340 वर्ग फुट के प्लाट को खरीदने की बात 69 लाख में तय हुई। मैने ये 69 लाख रूपयें कुछ नगद 5 लाख जिसकी रसीद 14.11.21 की दी है साढे तीन लाख 06.12.21 को दिया 15 लाख नगद 10.02.22 को दिये। 15 लाख आर०टी० जी०एस० 11.02.2022 को किया। 5 लाख का चैक 14.2.2 को दिया। साढे 11 लाख खाते से खाते में दि० 18.... चार लाख बैनामे की दिनांक 18.02.2021 तहसील पर नगद दिये। पूर्व में दिये गये 20 लाख रुपये एडजस्ट नहीं हुए क्योकि अलग अलग जमीन के अलग अलग मालिक थे। जब मैने ये 20 लाख मांगे तो बोले कि इस खरीदे हुए प्लाट के बराबर में 20 X 70 फीट फीट जमीन की है वो तो 20 लाख दे चुके हो बाकी ढाई लाख रूपये और दे दो। मैने ये ढाई लाख रूपये अनिरूद्ध गुप्ता को दिये कैश दुकान पर जिसकी दि० 04.05.22 की रसीद हस्तलिखित भी मुझे दी गयी। मैने अतुल गुप्ता को फोन कर बोला कि ढाई लाख रूपये दे दिया हूँ जमीन 17 X 70 फीट की रखना उतनी ही खरीदूंगा। और ये तय हो गया कि इस प्लाट को बैनामा 03.08.22 को करेगे। ये प्लाट साढे पच्चीस लाख में तय हुआ था तो 3 लाख शेष थे जिनके देने के लिए अतुल गुप्ता ने फोन किया 03.08.22 को कि विक्रेता किसान रूपेन्द्र को ये बचे तीन लाख रूपये खाते में आर०टी०जी०एस० कर दो। और बैनामें के लिखाने के पैसे जमा कर दो तो मैने 50 हजार मनोज राजपूत के पास जमा किया। बैनामा लिखाते समय मेरी पत्नी और बेटे से साइन करा लिये जब मैं वहां पहुंचा तो मैने देखा कि बैनामें में तय 17 X 70 फीट की जगह 8 X 70 फीट का बैनामा कर लिया है। जब मैने आपतित की तो विक्रय पत्र न पेश किया न विक्रेता के हस्ताक्षर शाम तक कराये तो मैने 100 नम्बर पर काल किया। वो बैनामा पुलिस ने आकर बैनामा लेखक से मुझे दिलाया। इन लोगो ने फर्जी तरीके से प्लाटिंग का नक्शा बनवाकर फर्जी तरीके से प्लाट बेच रहे है। पुलिस से सहायता प्राप्त न होने पर मैने ये परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया है।"
5. Trial Court concerned after considering statements passed impugned order dated 02.09.2023 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter:
"सुना तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया।
परिवादी द्वारा अपने परिवाद-पत्र में कथन किया गया है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा विपक्षीगण से अचल संपत्ति के क्रय-विक्रय हेतु बातचीत की गयी थी, जिसके सम्बंध में परिवादी की ओर से दिनांक 23.07.2021, 24.07.2021, 14.11.2021, 18.02.2022, 04.05.2022, 03.08.2022 को विपक्षीगण को विक्रीत धनराशि के रूप में पैसे प्रदत्त किये गये, परन्तु विपक्षीगण द्वारा दिनांक 03.08.2022 को परिवादी की पत्नी सुधा पाण्डेय के पक्ष में विक्रय पत्र निष्पादित नहीं किया गया। विक्रयपत्र निष्पादित न होने के पश्चात् बैनामा लेखक द्वारा उसे विक्रयपत्र के कागजात स्टाम्प के साथ, जिस पर विक्रेता का प्रमाणित फोटो लगा हुआ है, परन्तु विक्रेता के हस्ताक्षर नहीं बनाये गये हैं, प्रस्तुत किया गया है। परिवादी की ओर से परिवाद कथानक के समर्थन में प्रस्तावित विक्रयपत्र की मूल प्रति जो मूल स्टाम्प सहित है जिस पर परिवादी की पत्नी सुधा पाण्डेय के हस्ताक्षर व फोटो लगे हैं तथा एक अन्य व्यक्ति का फोटो लगा है तथा उक्त प्रस्तावित विक्रयपत्र के अंत में परिवादी राकेश कुमार पाण्डेय के पुत्र यश पाण्डेय के हस्ताक्षर व फोटो भी लगे हुए हैं, को कागज संख्या 10 क के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त परिवादी राकेश कुमार पाण्डेय की ओर से उसके खाता संख्या 312378324621 स्टेट बैंक संख्या के खाते का स्टेटमेंट प्रस्तुत किया गया है, जिसमें दिनांक 26.07.2021 व 27.07.2021 को 10-10 लाख रूपये की धनराशि प्रस्तुत किया जाने का अंकन है तथा दिनांक 11.02.2022 व 14.02.2022 को क्रमशः 1500047/- रूपये तथा 300000/-रूपये आर०टी०जी०एस० के द्वारा विपक्षी रूपेन्द्र सिंह व कोमल सिंह को प्रेषित किये जाने की प्रविष्टि भी अंकित है। इसेक अतिरिक्त दिनांक 18.02.2022 को 11,50,000 रूपये की धनराशि प्रेषित किये जाने की पृविष्ठि अंकित है। दिनांक 03.08.2022 को तीन लाख रूपये की धनराशि विपक्षीसंख्या 3 के पक्ष में प्रेषित किये जाने की प्रविष्टि भी अंकित है। परिवादी की ओर से अपने परिवाद कथानक व अपने बयान अन्तर्गत धारा 200 दं०प्र०संहिता में विपक्षीगण संख्या 1 व 2 के प्रापर्टी डीलिंग का काम करने तथा उनके कहने पर 10-10 लाख रूपये के दो चेक विक्रेता विकास शर्मा को दिये जाने तथा विपक्षीगण द्वारा परिवादी को प्रतापनेर कचौरा रोड पर 3340 वर्ष फीट के प्लाट के क्रय हेतु बात-चीत करने के पश्चात् धनराशि विपक्षीगण के बताये अनुसार दिये जाने के कथन किये गये हैं, परन्तु विपक्षीगण द्वारा धनराशि प्राप्त करने के पश्चात् भी परिवादी के पक्ष में विक्रयपत्र निष्पादन की दिनांक को विक्रयपत्र निष्पादित न करने के कारण यह परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया गया है।
थाना कोतवाली जनपद इटावा द्वारा प्रेषित आख्या अन्तर्गत धारा 202(1) दं०प्र०संहिता कागज संख्या 8 ख में भी विपक्षी संख्या 1 व 2 द्वारा परिवादी से पैसा के लेन-देन तथा प्लाट विक्रय के सम्बंध में बात-चीत होना स्वीकार किया गया है।
परिवादी के बयान अन्तर्गत धारा 202 दं०प्र०संहिता व पुलिस की आख्या अन्तर्गत धारा 202 (1) दं०प्र० संहिता तथा सूची 9 ख से प्रस्तुत प्रपत्रों के अवलोकन से प्रथम दृष्टया विपक्षीगण द्वारा परिवादी के साथ धोखाधड़ी कर पैसा प्राप्त किये जाने के पश्चात् भी विक्रयपत्र निष्पादित न करने के कारण धारा 420, 406 भा०दं० संहिता के अन्तर्गत अपराध बनना प्रथम दृष्टया दर्शित होता है। अतः विपक्षीगण अनुज गुप्ता, अतुल गुप्ता, रूपेन्द्र सिंह, कोमल सिंह अन्तर्गत धारा 420, 406 भा०दं० संहिता में तलब किये जाने योग्य है।"
6. Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for applicants has vehemently urged that factum of transaction of money and sale deed is not under much dispute though according to Complainant money was paid to one, Vikas Sharma, who was not proposed as accused in complaint. Applicants have executed a sale deed which has not been disputed as well as there is no challenge to it. The controversy is with regard to second sale deed which was not executed mainly on ground that there was a dispute with regard to area of land. Learned counsel submitted that such dispute is within the realm of civil dispute. Ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 IPC are not made out. There is no dishonest intention on behalf of applicants nor there is any entrustment over any property by applicants. Applicants are still ready to execute sale deed of lesser area.
7. Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for State and Sri Rishi Kant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for Complainant, have opposed the aforesaid submissions. They submitted that since inception of negotiation applicants have intention to deceive and despite payment of large amount, sale deed with regard to corresponding area of land was not executed and money was also not returned back, though on basis of record it was undisputed that no complaint was made against Vikash Sharma, to whom Complainant has paid Rs. 20 lacs, which is the amount alleged to be not returned.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
9. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraphs of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as the facts of said case and discussion on law, would be relevant for consideration of present case:-
"9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."
10. The Court has also noted the concern with regard to a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court also recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The Court, relying on the law laid down by it in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. The Court also observed that though no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.
11. This Court, in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, as under:
"15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station.
13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement." (Emphasis supplied)
10. Further, in order to consider the submission of learned counsel for applicants that ingredients of Section 406 IPC are made out or not, it would be apposite to refer a judgement passed by Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 wherein the ingredients for criminal breach of trust were discussed and relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter:
"27. Section 405 of IPC defines "Criminal Breach of Trust" which reads as under: -
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are:-
(1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that property, or;
(3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation,
(a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or;
(b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
28. "Entrustment" of property under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, ''in any manner entrusted with property'. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of ''trust'. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
29. The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone. This Court in R K Dalmia vs Delhi Administration, (1963) 1 SCR 253 held that the word ''property' is used in the Code in a much wider sense than the expression ''moveable property'. There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word ''property' to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405.
30. In Sudhir Shantilal Mehta Vs. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1 it was observed that the act of criminal breach of trust would, Interalia mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or has otherwise dominion thereover. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust."
11. I have carefully perused the statement of Complainant which has referred that Rs. 20 lacs was paid to Vikas Sharma under negotiation with applicants, however neither it was adjusted nor a subsequent sale deed of corresponding area was executed. The factum of execution of earlier sale deed was not disputed. Dispute remains with regard to sale deed which was though agreed but not executed since a dispute arose with regard to area of land.
12. As referred above, evidently it is a case where second round of negotiations of sale deed were failed and for that a civil remedy was an appropriate remedy. However, instead of approaching Civil Court, Complainant has alleged that offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are committed by applicants. Conspicuously, the person in whose Bank account Rs. 20 lacs were alleged to be paid, was not even made accused in complaint.
13. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC, i.e., intention to deceive since beginning of negotiation or act, even prima facie is not present in the present case since during negotiation one sale deed was admittedly executed and dispute remained with regard to second sale deed, so far as area of land is concerned. Therefore, intention to deceive since inception does not exist. The dispute is essentially of in regard to second sale deed which could not be executed as there was a dispute of area of land and failed negotiations in given facts and circumstances could not make out a case under Section 420 IPC.
14. So far as offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, there must be some entrustment. However, money was deposited in the Bank account of one, Vikas Sharma, therefore, allegation of entrustment, if any, would be against said person but admittedly said Vikas Sharma was not arrayed as one of the proposed accused in complaint. A reference that it was paid on instruction of applicants would itself not make out a case for not making any allegation against said Vikas Sharma or entire responsibility could not be shifted on applicants and statement also does not indicate the same.
15. In aforesaid circumstances, considering that ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 IPC are absent as well as Complainant has tried to give criminal colour to a civil dispute, therefore, I find that it is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings can be quashed.
16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196, that in similar circumstances inherent power could be exercised:
"6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In view of above, application is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 02.09.2023 as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 223 of 2023 (Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. Anuj Gupta and others), under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah, are hereby quashed.
18. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :-09.07.2024 AK