Allahabad High Court
Amarjit Singh Lamba And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 February, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5276 of 2020 Applicant :- Amarjit Singh Lamba And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra,Srijan Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants in Court today. Same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Srijan Mehrotra, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
3. This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed with a prayer to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1142 of 2019 and also summoning order dated 17.07.2019, summoning applicants for trial under Sections 453, 379, 420, 427, 506/34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.").
4. Learned counsel for applicants contended that there is civil dispute between parties, which was subject matter of Original Suit No. 140 of 2016, wherein written statement has also been filed by applicants and just to exert pressure upon applicants, criminal proceedings have been initiated and therefore, entire proceedings are gross abuse of process of law and liable to be set aside. He has further submitted that admittedly, land in dispute belongs to applicant and there is no sale deed executed in respect thereto. Mere execution of a sale deed does not confer any right upon complainant and ignoring all these aspects, Court below has summoned applicants on complaint made by complainant i.e. respondent-2. Learned counsel for applicants has placed reliance upon Supreme Court judgment in cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (3) G.L.H. 258; and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerela, AIR 2001 SC 2637.
5. Facts of the present application are that a complaint was filed by Deepak Yadav, son of B.K. Yadav before Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C., registered as Complaint Case No. 1142 of 2019 against accused-applicants, namely, Amarjit Singh Lamba and Ramandeep Singh.
6. The case set up by complainant reads as under :-
1. That the complainant is law abiding and peace loving citizen of India and residing at House No. 20/61, West Punjabi Bagh, new Delhi-110026 and also at House No. 14, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
2. That the complainant is working in the business of sale/purchase of property from his office No. 1, T.B./L-4, Fifth Floor, Plot No. A-41, Sector 62, Industrial Area, Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.
3. That on dated 06.05.2019 at around 12.30 noon the accused No. 2 i.e. Ramandeep Singh, S/o Late Shri K.L. Sehgal, R/o House No. C-9, Sector-21, Noida, Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. who is also nephew of the accused No. 1 i.e. Amarjeet Singh Lamba, on the instance of accused No. 1, Ramandeep has come to the above said office of the complaint along with 4-5 unknown persons and has broken the electronic lock, lock and glasses of the above said office of the complainant and entered into the office and broken many office equipments and the chairs, table, and looted cash amount to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- which was kept in the drawer of the table with the help of 4-5 unknown persons.
4. That one of the staff of the complainant and also colleague namely Karan Chawla reached at the spot then he shaw that the above said accused No. 2 alongwith 4-5 unknown persons were hurriedly running away from the office. The said Karan Chawla after seeing the accused persons running away from the office and also the condition of the office, has made a call on 100 numbers and thereafter the police officials came at the spot and all the happenings were narrated to the police officials but the police officials went back after writing something on the paper.
5. That it is humbly stated that the complainant has brought the above said office from the accused No. 1 i.e. Amarjit Singh Lamba and Amit Lamba who are the directors of M/s Mackson Creations Pvt. Ltd., and for the same, an agreement was made between the son of accused No. 1 namely Amit Lamba on the capacity of being the complainant alongwith his father on 06.02.2015. Wherein, it was agreed that the said office would be sold for the sum of the Rs. 2 Crores 10 Lakhs Only, but of which Rs. 2 Crores were already paid to the accused No. 1 through DD or RTGS and remaining Rs. 10,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of exectuion of sale deed, but after a few months from the said regsitered agreement to sell, the intention of the accused No. 1 alongwith the other directors of his company namely Amit Lamba son of Shri Amarjit Lamba started changing and they started making lame excuses to delay the regsitration of sale deed in favour of the complainant and his father. Aggrieved with the act and conduct of the accused No. 1 and his son (other directors of the company) for delaying execution of the sale deed even after lapse of one year as agreed in the said agreement with bad intention, the complainant alongwith his father has filed a civil suit bearing No. 140/2016, titled as 'Balkishan Yadav & Anr. Versus M/s. Mackson Creations Pvt. Ltd. and others', which is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (C.D.) FTC, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
6. That as per the above said registered agreement to sell as well as a separate possession letter given by the accused No. 1, the above said office is in possession of the complainant since very beginning. Apart from this, the accused No. 1 has also handed over all the original documents of the above said office to the complainant and thereafter the complainant was peacefully running his office from the above said property at Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., also known as 'The Correnthum'.
7. That the acused No. 1 Shri Amarjit Singh Lamba with the help of his nephew Shri Ramandeep i.e. accused No. 2 is willing to take back the possession from the complainant by hook or by crock with some gunda elements.
8. That the same type of attempts were made earlier also by the above said accuswed persons in the month of May 2018 and for the same the complainant has made a complaint to the S.H.O. P.S. Sector-58, 25.05.2018, but they (accused-persons) were not successful as they knew that a police complaint was already made against the accused persons in the above said complainant was peacefully enjoying the office up-till 05.05.2019.
9. That the photographs of the above said office showing the electronic lock installed by the complainant is also being enclosed alongwith the present complaint to show the complainant was already in actual physical possession of the said property/office.
10. That even after complaint sent to the S.S.P. through registered post as well as a copy of the same was given in the Office of the S.S.P Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P. No action is taken against the accused persons till the date. Copy of the said complainants alongwith postal receipts are annexed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
11. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant is afraid due to the said illegal act of the accused persons as the complainant apprehension of losing life and limb alongwith the said property i.e. office as the police officials have not taken any action against the accused persons and they are roaming at and around the above said property or office without any fear.
12. That the police officials intentionally and deliberately are trying to avoid to take the action against the accused persons.
13. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India time to time had issued the guideline and passed the judgment in respect of the registration of FIR when the complaint discloses the cognizable offence by the police officials on the first instance. In the present case because some of the police officials are involved that is why the concerned police officials deliberately have not been complied the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the registration of FIR regarding disclosing the cognizable offence.
7. Magistrate thereafter recorded statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witness, namely, Karan Chawla under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter passed a detailed order on 17.10.2019 on prima facie case that applicants have committed offence under Sections 453, 379, 420, 427, 506/34 and 120B I.P.C. and summoned them for trial.
8. From perusal of allegations contained in complaint read with statements of complainant and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no offence under Sections 453, 379, 420, 427, 506/34 and 120B I.P.C. is made out against applicants. The defense taken by applicants that land in dispute belonged to them and there is no sale deed executed by them, is basically the defense taken by applicants, which need be examined after parties have lead their evidences. Hence, it cannot be examined at this stage. In view of settled legal proposition, no finding can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture, in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :
"15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
(emphasis added)
9. Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Yognedra Singh Jadaun and Another) decided on 31.01.2000.
10. No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.
11. The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order date :- 11.02.2020 I. Batabyal