Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rekha Gupta And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1472, 2019 (109) ACC (SOC) 103 (ALL)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Judgment reserved on 01.08.2019 Judgment delivered on 02.09.2019 Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6919 of 2015 Applicant :- Smt. Rekha Gupta And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.S. Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ram Ker Singh,S L.Kesharwani,Saurabh Srivastava Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri S.S. Shah, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Laukush Kumar Shukla for opposite party no. 2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1582 of 2014 arising out of case crime no. 722 of 2013 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
3. To understand the dispute involved in the present case, it would be appropriate to recount here the facts of the matter, which are as follows:-
4. The opposite party no. 2 has lodged an FIR in the present case on 16.11.2013 stating therein that he had got an agreement to sell executed of half portion of plot No. A-82 situated in Takshila Colony, Garh Road, Meerut which was owned by one Rekha Gupta accused-applicant no. 1 wife of Ved Prakash on 1.07.2008 after advancing her an amount Rs.50,000/- and the remaining portion of the said plot was agreed to be sold in favour of brother of opposite party no. 2 Subhash Chandra and from him also the same amount was taken i.e. Rs.50,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the accused-applicant no. 1 was required to execute the sale deed of the said plot after obtaining permission as well as obtaining succession certificate within one month but the accused-applicant no. 1 had taken on various dates an amount of Rs.6,00,00/- from the brother of opposite party no. 2 and Rs.16,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 2, apart from amount which was already advanced under the agreement on the pretext for seeking permission and continued to avoid execution of the sale deed saying that she had not got permission and sometimes she would say that her son was not agreed to the said sale. The opposite party no. 2 due to old relation with the accused-applicant could not put much pressure on her and believing her assurance continued to pay her money but he came to know that the accused-applicant no. 1 had taken permission stealthy from the committee on 10.11.2009 and she was keeping him under false impression that the same had not been given and thus she wanted to usurp the amount which had already been extended to her by playing fraud upon the opposite party no. 2. Further it is mentioned in the said FIR that in order to usurp the said money of opposite party no. 2 and his brother, accused applicant no. 1 and accused-applicant nos. 2 to 4 who are his sons namely, Varun Gupta, Rajat Gupta and Vaibhav Gupta had conspired with each other and sold the said plot to one Vimla wife of Brahma Singh, Dinesh Kumar son of Brahma Singh, Savita wife of Dinesh Kumar, resident of 118-B, Takshila Colony, Meerut in a forged manner also colluding with the Registrar and representing that the said property was clear property. When the opposite party no. 2 talked to Vimla, Dinesh Kumar and Savita etc. it transpired that they had full knowledge about the agreement having been executed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 in respect of the said plot but in order to deprive the opposite party no. 2 of his rights, they got the said sale deed executed in their favour with ill intention, playing fraud upon the opposite party no. 2. They raised illegal wall on the said plot on the northern side and wanted to grab the whole plot. When the opposite party no.2 visited the spot and tried to stop illegal possession being taken, they indulged in abusing and also gave threat that the said plot had been purchased by them and if he comes again, he would be killed. The Investigating Officer, after having investigated the case, submitted charge-sheet against the above-mentioned accused-applicants under the abovementioned sections.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated by the applicants that the husband of the applicant no. 1 Ved Prakash Gupta had purchased the plot in question on 21.2.1987 through a registered sale deed and the same was mutated in his name. After his death, the applicants came in its possession. The opposite party no. 2 intended to purchase the said plot from applicant no. 1 regarding which an unregistered agreement was entered into between them on 08.05.2008. The total sale amount settled was Rs.16,25,000/- and payment of Rs.50,000/- was made to the applicant no. 1. and as per the terms and conditions, the opposite party no. 2 was to get the sale deed registered within one month. A copy of the said agreement to sell has been annexed as Annexure-2. Further it is stated that instead of getting the sale deed executed, the opposite party no. 2 sent a cheque dated 25.10.2008 which was refused by the applicant no. 1. In the meantime, the applicants got good value of their property i.e. Rs.43,10,000/- and executed registered sale deed in favour of the vendees, which is annexed as Annexure-4. The opposite party no. 2 had sent a notice dated 10.3.2010 for executing the sale deed in which it was mentioned that at the time of executing the agreement to sell, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was given and remaining balance would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-5. Another notice dated 5.4.2010 was sent by opposite party no. 2 specifically mentioning that the remaining amount of Rs.15,75,000/- would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-6. The opposite party no. 2 again sent notice dated 17.4.2010 and 8.5.2010 in which the balance amount was against mentioned as Rs.15,75,000/-. The applicant no. 1 sent a reply of the notice dated 10.3.2010 on 18.5.2010 through Devendra Kumar Kaushik, her advocate. After receipt of reply of the said notice, opposite party no. 2 filed civil suit no. 314 of 2011 for injunction against the applicants in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut, copy of the same is annexed as Annexrure-7. Written statement was filed therein denying the allegation made in the plaint, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-8. During pendency of the civil suit, opposite party no.2 got it amended by adding few facts. The trial court framed as many as 24 issues to be decided in the said suit and the same is still pending. It is further mentioned that the opposite party no. 2 without any rhyme or reason has lodged the first information report against the applicants on 16.11.2013.There was not even a whisper in the FIR regarding filing of the civil suit by opposite party no. 2 and allegations made in the FIR were different from the contents of notices sent by the opposite party no. 2 and the suit filed by him. The allegation of payment of Rs.6,00,000/- has been shown in the FIR whereas no such averment was made in the notices or in the suit, which itself goes to show that the FIR was lodged absolutely on the false and frivolous ground. The police has recorded the statement of the opposite party no. 2 who repeated the same version as given in the FIR and has also recorded the statement of witnesses of registered sale deed namely, Pramod Kumar and Pawan Kumar as well as the statement of Branch Manager of SBI and all the witnesses of unregistered agreement to sell namely, Pramod Tyagi, Om Prakash and the Secretary of Sahkari Samiti. The police also made a request to opposite party no.2 to hand over the original unregistered agreement but the same could not be produced by him despite repeated requests. The Investigating Officer contacted the Branch Manager of SBI who gave his report that a draft of Rs.4,00,000/ dated 25.10.2008 was got cancelled on 29.12.2009 by the informant and was deposited in the account of the opposite party no. 2. The police also recorded the second statement of the informant and several questions were put to him which were not replied satisfactorily. The police has also recorded the statement of purchaser of the plot in question namely, Dinesh Kumar, Smt. Vimla and Smt. Savita on 7.2.2014 who have stated that they had purchased the plot in question for adequate consideration. The statement of independent witness Jai Bhagwan was recorded who stated that Smt. Rekha executed sale deed only after lapse of time. On the basis of FIR, the police investigated the case and came across the notices, civil suit and various other things and ultimately came to the conclusion that no offence against the applicants was made out and submitted final report on 18.2.2014. The Superintendent of Police (Crime) rejected the final report and again further investigation was ordered. The police again recorded third statement of the informant who leveled the allegation of taking Rs.6,50,000/- from the opposite party no. 2 by the applicant, which was never mentioned in any of the notices nor in the civil suit, which makes it evident that only in order to harass and humiliate the entire family of the applicants, the said false allegations have been made. The police has also recorded statement of his brother namely, Subhash Chandra and second statements of the witness of agreement to sell namely, Pramod Tyagi and Om Prakash. Police has also recorded the statement of witness Hari Mohan Gupta and second statement of Branch Manager, SBI on 19.5.2014. It has again recorded statement of Promod Singh, Secretary of the Society who stated that NOC was given to Smt. Rekha Gupta on 10.11.2009. The police had also recorded the statement of witness Pradeep Kumar son of Mangu Singh who had got prepared the demand draft and ultimately submitted charge sheet against the applicants on 12.10.2014 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, who has taken cognizance on 22.10.2014. It is further mentioned that as per prosecution only an unregistered agreement to sell was prepared which did not give any right, title or interest to the opposite party no. 2 over the property in dispute as the same was not binding upon the applicant no. 1. Since no right accrued to the opposite party no. 2, hence the applicants were free to execute the sale deed of the said plot to any other person. No illegality was committed by the applicants in the said sale being full owner of the said property. It is further mentioned that earlier the applicants had approached this Court and was granted stay against their arrest till submission of the police report vide order dated 13.5.2014. Further it is mentioned that this matter is of civil nature and the initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of court. Further, it is mentioned that no offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504 and 506 IPC has been made out against the applicants, hence criminal proceedings need to be quashed.
6. In rebuttal by filing a counter affidavit, the opposite party no. 2 has stated therein that plot no. A-82 area 856.75 sq. yards was purchased by Late Ved Prakash Gupta (husband of the applicant no. 1) in Takshila Colony from Takshila Sahkari Avas Samiti on 21.2.1987 through registered sale deed, pursuant to which his name was mutated thereon and after his death the applicant no. 1 and her sons who are applicant nos. 2 to 4 became its owner being legal heirs of the deceased. The applicant no. 1 on her own had proposed to sell the said plot on certain terms and conditions which led to executing an agreement dated 1.7.2008 between the parties duly signed by applicant no. 1 in the presence of the witnesses mentioned therein which is annexed as Annexure CA-1. Half portion of the said plot was to be purchased by his brother and while remaining half was agreed to be purchased by the opposite party no. 2 for a consideration of Rs.16,25,000/- only. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell, an amount of Rs.50,000/- as part payment of consideration was accepted by the applicant no. 1 and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid by the opposite party no. 2 at the time of execution of the sale deed. Therefore, right from the inception, the intention and motive of the accused-applicant no. 1 was not clear, as at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 1.7.2008, no permission was ever sought by her from Takshila Sahkari Avas Samiti for execution of the sale deed, moreover, applicants were also not having succession certificate on the date of execution of the agreement to sell. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the opposite party no.2 requested the applicants for execution of the sale deed but in the absence of permission from the concerned Sahkari Avas Samiti, request of the opposite party no. 2 was turned down by the applicants. Moreover, the applicants demanded and accepted Rs.6,00,000/- in certain parts only on the ground for seeking permission from Takshila Sahkari Avas Samiti for executing the sale deed in favour of the opposite party no. 2. A demand draft of Rs.4,00,000/- was handed over to the applicant no. 1 on 25.10.2008 which was issued from the account of opposite party no. 2 maintained in the SBI, Khatauli, Muzaffar Nagar but the same was never put for clearance by her and after expiry of 14 months, the same was returned to the opposite party no. 2 which shows the intention of the applicants that they deliberately, with ill motive, after receipt of Rs.6,50,000/- from the opposite party no. 2, had not executed the sale deed of the plot in question. The opposite party no.2 facilitated the applicant no. 1 in terms of money by depositing Rs.3,94,200 in the office of the said Samiti on 7.11.2009 by way of requisite dues of the development and maintenance charges. Immediately, after receiving the outstanding dues, the Samiti granted permission for execution of the sale deed but even after no objection certificate was given by concerned Samiti, the applicants were not executing the sale deed as per agreement, hence opposite party no. 2 made a request to the applicant for execution of the same through registered notice dated 10.3.2010 wherein the date of execution of sale deed was mentioned as 25.3.2010. The applicant no. 1 communicated to the opposite party no. 2 that she was ready to execute the sale deed after 20 days from the time which was mentioned by the opposite party no. 2. After completion of 20 days, the opposite party no. 2 put his appearance from morning till evening along with all the documents and requisite fee for registration of sale deed as well as balance amount of payment of consideration in the office of Sub Registrar-I, Meerut. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure CA-2. A legal notice dated 6.5.2010 was also got served by opposite party no. 2 upon the applicants to appear before the Office of Sub Registrar-I, Meerut for execution of sale deed, copy of which is annexed as Annexure CA-3. The said legal notice was replied by the applicants in which it was admitted by them that the agreement to sell was executed by them as well as money mentioned therein was received by them, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure CA-4. Opposite party no. 2 having no option left, filed a civil suit being civil suit no.314 of 2011 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut seeking prohibitory injunction against the applicants with further prayer that a direction be issued to the applicants to execute sale deed with respect to the said plot. A written statement was also filed from the side of the applicants and in paragraph no. 3 of which the applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 4 admitted that an agreement to sell was executed by them but the same was unregistered. During the pendency of the said suit, it transpired that in breach of the agreement, by way of committing cheating and fraud with concealment of fact, the applicants executed a registered sale deed of the said plot on 6.1.2010 in favour of Smt. Vimla Devi, Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Smt. Savita. Thereafter, immediately the opposite party no. 2 moved an application for amendment which was allowed. The opposite party no. 2 is exercising his civil right for seeking part performance of the proposed sale deed of the plot in question in his favour through court as his matter is well covered under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act but at the same time it was also a criminal liability on the part of the applicants who after having received Rs.6,50,000/- and entered into an unregistered agreement, have fraudulently executed the sale deed of the same plot to some other persons by committing cheating, forgery on valuable security and forgery for the purposes of cheating by using a forged document. Therefore, there is no justification of quashing the proceedings.
7. Some more facts have been placed on record from the side of the applicants through rejoinder affidavit dated 04.09.2016 in which it is mentioned that it is admitted position that unregistered agreement to sell was executed by the applicant no. 1 on a Rs.100/- stamp paper in which though the names of Smt. Rekha Gupta and her sons Varun Gupta, Vaibhav Gupta and Rajat Gupta have been mentioned as party no.1 but the said unregistered agreement was only shown to be signed by Smt. Rekha Gupta and by no other person. The said agreement being unregistered, would not create any right, title or interest on the opposite party no. 2 which was executed on payment of Rs.50,000/- and the total settlement between the parties was Rs.16,25,000/-. It is further mentioned that opposite party no. 2 has annexed the certificate of appearance before the Sub Registrar, Meerut on 22.4.2010 and has also annexed notice dated 06.05.2010 and both these papers show that he admitted this fact that he had paid Rs.50,000/- while remaining amount of Rs.15,75,000/- was yet to be paid. Therefore, it is clear that except Rs.50,000/-, no further payment has been made in any form by the opposite party no. 2. Further, it is mentioned that the averments made in the plaint are totally different from that of the notices given to the applicants as nowhere was it mentioned in the notice that the opposite party no. 2 ever made payment of Rs.50,000/- but in suit it was alleged that the applicants were given cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- which itself shows the falsehood in the prosecution story. Further, it is mentioned that execution of unregistered agreement to sell would not confer any right, title or interest upon opposite party no.2 and the applicants had legal rights to execute sale deed in favour of any other person and that matter is of civil nature and no criminal liability would arise. Allegation of making payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- later on, is totally false which have been made only to pressurize the applicants as the said fact is totally missing from the application given to Sub Registrar and is also missing in various notices which have been annexed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit. The draft of Rs.4,00,000/- allegedly issued in the name of the applicant no. 1 was never presented in the bank and the same was returned to the opposite party no. 2 which itself is clear from the statement of Branch Manager, therefore, the charge-sheet filed against the applicants is totally malafide and needed to be quashed. The matter being of civil nature, the amount of Rs.50,000/- allegedly paid by opposite party no. 2 under the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell could be recovered by filing civil suit which is still pending. It is simply a case of non-execution of sale deed and it should also not be ignored that after investigation initially final report was submitted but on the direction of superior officer, investigation was further made and Investigating Officer was left with no option but to submit charge sheet which has been submitted without any evidence on record. The present dispute is subjudice before the civil court.
8. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others 2012 LawSuit (SC) 840 wherein it is held that civil transaction made also have a criminal texture. High Court must see whether civil matter is a cloak of Criminal offence. If a civil remedy is available and adopted by the complainant, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In this case complaint attributed forgery, fabrication of documents and grabbing profit of running business by appellant appointed to be Manager of the Chicken Corner. The appellant was to receive Rs.25% of the net profit as salary. The appellant claimed tenancy of business premises by filing civil suit for injunction and obtained order of status quo. Possession was delivered by the appellant to the complainant who failed to appear and opposed the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.. It was held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and hence they were quashed because civil court had observed that the documents produced by the appellant for claiming tenancy would have to be proved by evidence and hence status quo was directed till pendency of the suit. The complainant started criminal proceedings alleging that documents filed by the appellant in the civil suit were fabricated. It was held that the grievance of the complainant about forgery of the documents will be considered by the civil court and the appellant can deal with about such forgery in the said civil suit. The possession of the shop was handed over by the appellant to the complainant. In these circumstances, criminal proceedings if continued, were held to be an abuse of process of Court.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on AIR 1979 Supreme Court 850 Trilok Singh and others vs. Satya Deo Tripathi. In this case a truck was purchased under hire purchase agreement and default was caused which led to seizure of truck by the financier. The purchaser launched criminal prosecution against financier. It was held that the dispute raised was of purely civil nature and criminal proceedings initiated were nothing but an abuse of the process of court which deserves to be quashed.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on Kunstocom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. GILT Pack Ltd., 2002 LAWSuit (SC) 112. In this case question examined was whether objection ought to be raised at the time of framing of charge only. Answer was in the negative and it was held that there was no hard and fast rule that the objection as to cognizability of offence and maintainability of the complaint should be allowed to be raised only at the time of framing of the charge. Such was not intention of the High Court in passing the order dated 15.5.1996. In any case, in Ashok Chaturvedi and others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and another, (1998) 7 SCC 698 it was held that determination of the question as regards the propriety of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process need not necessarily wait till the stage of framing the charge.
11. Lastly the reliance has been placed by the applicant upon Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Mandan Lal Kapoor, 2013 LawSuit (SC) 69 in which it has been held that the High Court can exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 or suo moto to prevent abuse of process of law and can rely on material produced by accused if suspicion is shown as to allegations in complaint, accused may not be discharged. Care and caution should be shown while considering application to quash process as quashing of process results in negation of prosecution at initial stage.
12. From the citations which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is evident that through these citations, learned counsel for applicant is trying to convey to the court that in the present case it being a civil matter, criminal proceedings would not lie. He has, during the argument, mainly emphasized that only Rs.50,000/- were paid to the accused-applicant no.1 by the opposite party no. 1 pursuant to unregistered agreement to sell having been executed by the accused applicant no. 1 in favour of opposite party no. 2 for sale of the property in question. Only remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed which has been mentioned above. It was argued that such kind of unregistered document does not confer any power upon the opposite party no. 2 to claim transfer of property because any such kind of deal whereunder immovable property would transfer from one hand to another has got to be registered document. Therefore, in the present case, the alleged agreement to sell which is said to have been executed by the accused-applicant in favour of opposite party no. 2 being document written on simply a stamp of Rs.100/- would not extend any right or title to get the said deal executed in favour of the opposite party no. 2. At the most, Rs.50,000/- which have been paid by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant no. 1 can be claimed back through filing recovery suit and no criminal case could be initiated for recovery of said amount nor any case of cheating would lie for such kind of recovery. Further it is mentioned that the payment of Rs.2.00.000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- which is stated to have been made subsequently is also a false claim as no such transaction has taken place between the two sides and the same has only been stated in order to put pressure upon the accused-applicants. Since the alleged agreement to sell was not a valid and acceptable document, the accused-applicants were fully empowered to sell their land to any other person and accordingly, they have chosen to sell the same in favour of three other persons named above.
13. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the quashing of the proceedings saying that the intention of the accused-applicants of cheating opposite party no. 2 was there right from the beginning because an amount of Rs.50,000/- was admittedly taken at the time of execution of the agreement to sell though it is an unregistered agreement but the same would certainly indicate that the accused-applicant no.1 had admitted to execute the sale deed of the said property in favour of the opposite party no. 2 otherwise the said amount of Rs.50,000/- would not have been accepted/taken by the accused-applicant no.1. The intention of the accused applicants right from the beginning was to cheat the opposite party no.. 2 because several notices were sent to the accused applicants to come to office of Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed as the opposite party no. 2 was ready to pay the balance amount and remained present at the said office and despite sufficient notice having been given to the applicants, they did not appear for execution of the sale deed after taking the remaining amount, instead they have sold the said property in favour of third persons thereby it is apparent that the accused-applicants have cheated the opposite party no. 2.
14. Reliance may be placed by me on S.G. Gupta vs. Ashutosh Gupta (2010) 6 SCC 562 in which it was held that positive assertion was made in complaint that assurance had been given by the petitioner (attorney of accused no. 1) to the complainant that property in question was free from all encumbrances and that the accused no.1 was the sole owner and that had not such a representation been made relating to status of ownership of property in question, complainant may not have entered into transaction at all. It was held that whether the petitioner was truly mistaken as regards information given by him is an important issue which needs to be decided in answering the charge made. Prima-facie case for going to trial, was thus, made out. Further, it is held that if at very initiation of negotiations it was evident that there was no intention to cheat, dispute would be of a civil nature. However, such a conclusion would depend on evidence to be led at the time of trial.
15. Another reliance may also be placed by me on N. Devindrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 5 SCC 228, in this case finding of fact by the courts below that appellant-accused dishonestly induced complainant to deliver him Rs.2000/- as advance in cash, as part-payment allegedly for sale of the plot of land, knowing fully that he was not the owner of the said plot. Evidence of complainant corroborated by bogus receipt issued by the accused bearing signatures of the accused and complainant and handwriting of the accused was testified by the handwriting expert. It was held that the issuance of bogus receipts by the accused given to complainant, amounts to cheating as also inducement to complainant of being provided a plot by the accused. Since property includes money, hence offence under section 420 IPC was made out. Further it is held that the case of the appellant that he had no intention to cheat the complainant and that the case was of civil nature, it was held that an act can result in both civil and criminal liability. Hence merely because the act of appellant had civil liability that does not mean that it cannot also have criminal liability.
16. The above two citations would suffice for me to emphasize that the present case could be covered under the above established proposition of law because in the present case liability of accused-applicant could be civil as well as criminal both. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party no. 2 had given Rs.50,000/-- to the accused-applicants for sale of the plot in question by the applicant in favour of opposite party no.2 and the remaining amount was to be paid subsequently. If the accused-applicant did not want to sell the said plot to the opposite party no. 2, they should not have received/accepted the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is also true that the agreement to sell which is stated to have been executed by the accused-applicant in favour of opposite party no..2 is not a registered document, hence on the civil side the claim to get the sale deed executed of the disputed plot would not be possible to make because of said document being unregistered one, as, for transfer of immovable property such kind of transaction is bound to be a registered document. In the present case, it is not a registered document but it cannot be denied that the accused-applicant has accepted Rs.50,000/- despite the fact that they did not have any intention to sell the said land to the opposite party no. 2 and did not return that money also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence would not be covered under the definition of cheating which is defined under section 419 IPC and which is punishable under section 420 IPC prima-facie. It is apparent that the accused-applicant instead of selling the said plot to the opposite party no.2, sold the same to other three persons on higher amount. Therefore, intention not to sell the said land to opposite party no. 2 was right from the beginning. Whatever other factual disputes are referred in the present case such as payment of Rs.6.00,000/- over and above of Rs.50,000/-, same has been paid or not, is a subject matter of evidence which would be seen only during the trial. In such conspectus, I consider it not appropriate to quash the proceedings under inherent jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 02.09.2019 AU