HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 36987 of 2019
Applicant :- Vijendra Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anwar Mehdi Zaidi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anwar Mehdi Zaidi, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 1007 / 16 – (Vijendra Pal Singh Vs. Manoj Kumar Ors), and also to stay the operation of impugned order dated 11.04.2019.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that learned Magistrate has treated the application of applicant under Section 156 (3) SectionCr.PC as complaint and after recording statements under Section 200 and Section202 Cr.P.C has dismissed the same vide impugned order, which is wrong on the facts and law; that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 agreed to sell their land in favour of applicant for a sum of Rs. 36,17,644/- (Rs. Thirty Six Lac Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) and executed a notarized agreement for sale in favour of the applicant after accepting a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-( Rs. Ten Lac) as earnest money and sale-deed was agreed to be executed within six months; that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 with mala-fide intention sold the disputed property to Ram Sadhna Developers House, Bareilly, for a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Eight Lac) and when the applicant asked them to return the earnest money with interest at the rate of 18 %, they abused him and stated that they have intentionally sold the land to policeman and thus they have usurped Rs. 10,00,000 (Rs. ten lac) of applicant; that Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance under Section 406 I.P.C but has wrongly rejected the complaint; that proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A submitted that the case is purely of civil nature and the applicant if have been cheated by opposite parties no. 2 to 5 in the manner as alleged by him, he may seek appropriate remedy for recovery of the said money from civil courts; that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the complaint, as no offence is made out.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, and the applicant has failed to prove any prima facie case.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.
The application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.10.2019