AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral) By means of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.03.2015, summoning order dated 11.05.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1154 of 2015 (Case Crime No.337 of 2014) under Sections 420, 406, 506 & 120-B of IPC, P. S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., are as follows:
The respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar, against the applicant and others alleging therein that the co-accused Aiyaz and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement on 13.05.2013 and the respondent No.2 paid Rs.20 lakhs to the said Aiyaz as earnest money to purchase his land mentioned in the agreement and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid at the time of sale deed but later one the respondent No.2 came to know that he has been cheated by the accused persons on asking his money back, he was threatened by the accused persons.
The FIR was registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar on 18.09.2014, as Case Crime No.337 of 2014, under Sections 420, 406, 506 & 120-B IPC.
Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, investigation ensued and culminated in filing of the charge sheet against the accused persons and based on the said charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide impugned order dated 11.05.2015.
Assailing the charge sheet, summoning order and the entire proceedings, seeking quashing thereof, the learned counsel for the applicant would draw the attention of the Court to the agreement to sell, dated 13.05.2013, which has been placed on record as Annexure No.2 to the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, and would submit that the applicant before the court, Mohd. Mustafa is only a witness of the said agreement.
He would further submit that neither he is beneficiary of the agreement, nor any money has been received by him.
Learned counsel for the applicant would further draw the attention of the Court to the sale deed dated 08.07.2013, executed by Aiyaz Ali in favour of Suleman.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in pursuance to the agreement dated 13.05.2013, the sale deed has already been executed by the proposed vendor to the proposed vendee and in such view of the matter, there was no occasion for the I.O. to have filed the charge sheet against the applicant, since he is neither the beneficiary nor he has received any amount, and he is merely an eyewitness of the agreement to sell, which in fact has subsequently resulted in execution of the sale deed by the vendor in favour of the vendee.
He would, thus, submit that the matter is purely civil in nature and the applicant could not have been attracted with any criminal liability for merely being a witness of the agreement to sell, which in fact has resulted in the execution of a sale deed by the vendor in favour of the vendee, who were the parties (Party No.1 and Party No.2) to the agreement to sell. He would, thus, submit that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would be a sheer abuse of process of law, and the charge-sheet and the summoning order against the applicant deserve to be quashed.
Learned State counsel would very fairly submit before the Court that the applicant, Mohd. Mustafa is merely a witness to the agreement to sell. Therefore, he may not be burdened with any criminal liability.
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the applicant, Mohd. Mustafa is merely a witness to the agreement to sell dated 13.05.2013 and in pursuance thereto, the sale deed has already been executed by the first party i.e. Aiyaz in favour of the second party i.e. Mohd. Suleman and from the said facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that no criminal offence against the applicant would arise.
Even otherwise, a bare perusal of the FIR would submit that it pertains to a civil dispute of some land dealings and in the FIR it has been requested for assisting the informant in recovery of the rest of the amount from the accused persons. The matter appears to be purely civil in nature, and moreover, the applicant before this Court is merely a witness of the agreement to sell and no criminal liability is attracted against him.
Therefore, in order to prevent abuse of the process of law, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC deserve to be invoked.
Thus, the present criminal misc. application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.03.2015, summoning order dated 11.05.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1154 of 2015 (Case Crime No.337 of 2014) under Sections 420, 406, 506 & 120-B of IPC, P. S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed, qua the applicant.
The present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.