Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Col. Tikam Singh Tanwar vs State Of U.P. . on 10 March, 2014
$0
ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4795/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 07/03/2013 in CRMWP No.15079/2012, of
The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
COL. TIKAM SINGH TANWAR & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay,exemption from filing O.T. and office report)
Date: 10/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sikha Beri, Adv.
Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Vivek Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Kumar, Adv.
Mrs. Jyoti Chahar, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, AAG
Mr. Atif Suharawardy, Adv.
Mr. Abhisth Kumar ,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
[ Neeta ] [ Usha Sharma]
Sr. P.A. Court Master
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4795 of 2013)
COL. TIKAM SINGH TANWAR & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15079 of 2012.
By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR of Case Crime No. 368 of 2012 under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut.
The owner of House no. 65, old no. 52, Saket Society No. D-93, measuring 1000 Sq. yards, situated at Saket, Meerut. The respondent Anuj Singhal, s/o late Sri Jyoti Prasad Singhal and Ala Singhal, w/o Sri Anuj Singhal agreed to purchase the said residential house for a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) and paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Only) on 16th January, 2012 by two chques as earnest money. Those cheques were dishonored and returned by the IDBI Bank, subsequently, two cheques of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) each were again issued on 20th August, 2012 and 7th February, 2012 and those were -2- credited in favour of the appellant. Additional amount of Rupees One Lac in cash was given through the broker at the residence.
The agreement as on 16th January, 2012 was oral only and an undated receipt for Rs.21 Lacs was executed. The respondent filed a civil suit on 1st July, 2012 in O.S. No. 750 of 2012 before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division for the relief, inter alia, to issue decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and restrain the defendants from executing any sale deed in favour of any other person except the plaintiff. The appellant is the defendant in the said suit and has filed a written statement. In the said suit, the Court refused to grant relief for temporary injunction.
The grievance of the appellant is that when the Civil Court refused to grant any injunction, for the same set of facts, the respondent filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. on 7th August, 2012 before the Magistrate Meerut which was taken on board and the Magistrate directed to register an FIR on 5th September, 2012. Accordingly, the FIR No. 368 of 2012 was registered under Section 406/420 IPC. Against the said FIR when appellant moved and challenged, the High Court refused to entertain the prayer on the ground that the prima facie offence is made out.
On notice the respondents have appeared. We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties. From the facts as noticed above -3- and bare perusal of the complaint, we find that the complaint relates to same set of facts relating to payment of advance made in favour of appellants for purchase and transfer of property in question The bare facts of case disclosed a civil dispute between the parties. No ingredient of Section 406/420 IPC has been made out in the complaint. In this background we held that learned Magistrate was not correct in directing the police to lodge the FIR and this was a fit case for High Court for interference. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside, the order passed by the High Court, and the order passed by Magistrate to lodge FIR and quash the FIR.
The appeal is allowed.
.............................J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) .............................J. ( DIPAK MISRA) NEW DELHI;
MARCH 10, 2014