Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 16 December, 2020
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?A.F.R. Court No. - 27 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3104 of 2020 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra & Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Porwal,Samir Agrawal,Vivek B. Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the respondent - State.
2. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed challenging the charge sheet and the order of cognizance, whereby summon has been issued against the petitioners.
3. Brief fact of the case is that an agreement was executed between the parties to provide plot and in pursuance thereof certain money was deposited by the complainant, however, the petitioners could not provided the plot as per the agreement and after taking money the FIR was registered against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 409 and 34 IPC. The investigating officer submitted charge sheet, wherein sufficient material was found under Section 409 IPC.
4. Assailing the order, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into a compromise and have returned alternative plot to the complainant, therefore, the entire proceeding is liable to be set-aside in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. He further submitted that the trial court has not taken cognizance of submission advanced before it and has proceeded to issue summon to the petitioners, therefore, his submission is that the entire proceeding is per-se illegal and is liable to be set-aside.
5. On the other hand, learned AGA - Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh submitted that once an agreement was executed between the parties and in pursuance thereof money was paid to the petitioners and if there is a breach of trust, the petitioners have committed a crime, therefore, in terms of compromise, they are not entitled to get an order from this court.
6. He further submitted that it is a temporary embezzlement of money paid by the complainant. He next submitted that by giving alternative plot after submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners, the crime, which has been committed, cannot be compromised.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it is reflected that there is sufficient material to establish the payment in pursuance to an agreement to handover the plot on deposit of certain money. The investigating officer upon examination of the totality of the case found that the petitioners have committed breach of trust and after taking money from the complainant, have not provided plot as assured by them.
9. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code provides as under :-
"405. 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 trust'."
9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that harassment has been made to the complainant by committing "breach of trust" and in such circumstances the complainant has lodged the FIR. The petitioners belong to Ansal Group, which is a renowned real estate firm and as per news reportings, it is highlighted that Ansal Group has played fraud on the mass with public and there are so many FIRs lodged against it. If, such a reputed firm is permitted to be involved in harassment of common people, it will ruin the entire society and will demotivate the peoples, who are willing to purchase plots and flats.
10. I have also perused the terms of compromise which establishes that the petitioners themselves have admitted the crime by making compromise with the complainant to return the alternative plot, therefore, this court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order impugned and in submission of charge sheet.
11. The petition lacks merit and is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 16.12.2020 / Adarsh K Singh