Uttarakhand High Court
9 May vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4100
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 593 of 2025
19 May, 2025
Rohit Mancahnda
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present C528 application, applicant has put to challenge the summoning order dated 06.12.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3257 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Rohit Manchanda, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, pending before the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
2. Facts in nutshell are that on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent no.3-Ravi Bajaj jointly with Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Sharavan Kumar Gupta an FIR No.0126 of 2023 was registered against the applicant along with co-accused with the allegations that applicant along with other co-accused had agreed to sell the land admeasuring 0.764745 hectares situated in Khasra Nos.286 and 218M, Village Jwalapur, District Haridwar for total sale consideration of Rs.13,16,57,600/-
12025:UHC:4100 pursuant to agreement to sell dated 01.05.2022. An advance of Rs.4 crores had been paid and possession was purportedly handed over on 14.06.2022 for the purpose of developing the land into a residential colony. After 2 ½ months, applicant and other co-accused began to obstruct further development. Thereafter, the applicant fraudently entered into a subsequent registered agreement, and sold the land in favour of Ms. Reena and Shri Anuj Kumar. It is further alleged that applicant used fabricated documents and extended threats to the complainants to dispossess them.
3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicant on 30.05.2023. Thereafter, the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took cognizance on the charge- sheet and summoned the applicant on 06.12.2023 in Criminal Case No.3257 of 2023, State of Uttarakhand vs. Rohit Manchanda.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution initiated against the applicant arises from an unregistered agreement to sell dated 01.05.2022, which neither creates any right, title or interest in the subject property, nor is legally capable of being enforced. He further submits that since the dispute is of civil nature, therefore, the summoning order passed by learned Magistrate is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case.
22025:UHC:4100
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record.
8. From perusal of the FIR, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. In this view of the matter, this Court does not want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on the point that the inherent powers under Section 528 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the present C528 application fails and the same is dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.05.2025 AK 3