Supreme Court of India
SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. on 3 February 2022
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 509
SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Criminalproceedings u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC – Sixaccused including appellants-accused –Allegation in FIR that oneco-accused had misappropriated complainant’s and other persons’monies whereafter the property in question was attached in the year1998-199 against the amounts due; and in the year 2019, theproperty was purchased by the appellants – High Court declined toquash criminal proceedings against the appellants – Justificationof – Held: Not justified – Main allegations were against the co-accused – Only allegation against the appellants was that theypurchased the property in question – Even from the averments andallegations in the FIR, no prima facie case made out against theappellants – To continue criminal proceedings against the appellantswould be an abuse of process of law and the Court, and unnecessaryharassment to the appellants – Criminal proceedings quashedinsofar as appellants are concerned – IPC – ss.406, 420, 467, 468,471 and 120-B.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Having perused the allegations in the complaint/F.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against theother co-accused. The only allegation against the appellants isthat they have purchased the property in question, which wasattached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due andpayable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber MutualBenefits Ltd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that theproperty has been purchased by the appellants in the year 2019.Nothing is brought on record that at the time when the propertywas purchased by the appellants, the attachment was continuedand/or any attachment was registered. There are no allegations
509
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Athat the appellants are related to the other co-accused. Even fromthe averments and the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be saidthat there is any prima facie case made out against the appellantsfor the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The main allegations are against other co-accused.Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings against theBappellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court andunnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be thepurchasers of the property on payment of sale consideration. Inthe above facts and circumstances of the case, the High Courtought to have exercised its powers and discretion under SectionC482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the criminal proceedingsagainst the appellants. [Para 6][512-G-H; 513-A-D]
2. The criminal proceedings for offences under Sections406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, including the chargesheet are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as the appellantsDare concerned. [Para 7][513-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature in Allahabad in Application U/s 482 No.47634 of 2019.
E
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advs.,Parmanand Gaur, Vikalp Mudgal, Ekansh Bansal, Vaibhav Mishra, AjaySingh, Amit Kumar, Anurag Andley, Rahul Pratap Singh, Ms. Alka Sinha,Abhishek Atrey, Advs. for the Appellants.
FR. K. Raizada, AAG, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Shreesh KumarMishra, Santosh Kumar, Ms. Priya Puri, Mukesh Rana, Ms. Mamta,Ms. Smriti Sinha, Ranjay Dubey, Yati Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.G
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in an Application under Section 482 No. 47634 of 2019 bywhich the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused H
to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section482 Cr.P.C., original accused Nos. 2 and 3 – appellants herein – Smt.Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain have preferred the present appeal.
2. That on the basis of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.submitted by the respondent No.2 herein – original complainant, on thediections of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, F.I.R.dated 21.01.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 was registeredunder Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar,District Hapur against six accused persons including the appellants herein.
2.1 That it was stated in the F.I.R. that one Arun KumarMaheshwari (co-accused) had earlier misappropriated complainant’s andother persons’ monies ostensibly towards deposit in one Kuber MutualBenefits Ltd. (in the year 1998-1999), and fled from Hapur withoutreturning the monies back due to which, the property in question wasattached by and was given in custody to the complainant - PradeepSinghal and one Bijendra Maheshwari, and now the accused havefraudulently sold the property in question to the co-accused Smt. RekhaJain and Smt. Minakshi Jain (appellants herein).
2.2 That the appellants herein and other co-accused approachedthe High Court by way of the present application to quash the criminalproceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By theimpugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the saidapplication. Hence the accused, Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. MinakshiJain have preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – accusedhas vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the High court has committed a grave error in not quashing thecriminal proceedings against the appellants.
3.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellants that the main allegations are against one Arun KumarMaheshwari and others and that too for the offences of misappropriationof the amount deposited between 1995-1999. It is submitted that theappellants are the bona fide purchasers of the property in question, whichwas neither an attached property nor a subject matter of any dispute atthe time it was purchased by the appellants.
3.2 It is submitted that on a bare reading of the allegations in theF.I.R./complaint, no case is made out against the appellants for the AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aoffences alleged except the allegation that the appellants have purchasedthe property, which is alleged to be an attached property. It is submittedthat neither any attachment was registered nor any attachment was inexistence at the time when the appellants purchased the property.
3.3 It is submitted that except the allegation that the appellantsBhave purchased the so called alleged attached property, there are nofurther allegations at all by which it can be said that the appellants havecommitted the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
3.4 It is therefore submitted that the criminal proceedings againstCthe appellants are nothing but an abuse of process of law and anunnecessary harassment to them. Therefore, it is prayed to quash thecriminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Shri R.K. Raizada, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing on behalf of the State tried to oppose the present appeal byDsubmitting that after the investigation, the charge sheet has been filedand therefore the present criminal proceedings be not quashed at thisstage. However, when a pointed question was asked to the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the State about the actual role assignedto the appellants and to point out any material against the appellants forthe offences alleged and other allegations, except the allegation that theEappellants have purchased the property, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the State was not in a position to point out any other materialagainst the appellants by which, it can be said that any prima facie caseis made out against the appellants for the offences alleged.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainantF– respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit submitting that havingcome to know the true facts, he has no objection if the criminalproceedings against the appellants are quashed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and having perused the allegations in the complaint/GF.I.R., it can be seen that the main allegations are against the other co-accused – Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. The only allegationagainst the appellants is that they have purchased the property in question,which was attached in the year 1998-1999 against the amounts due andpayable to the depositors, who had deposited in Kuber Mutual BenefitsLtd. between 1998-1999. It is to be noted that the property has beenH
purchased by the appellants in the year 2019. Nothing is brought onrecord that at the time when the property was purchased by the appellants,the attachment was continued and/or any attachment was registered.There are no allegations that the appellants are related to the other co-accused Arun Kumar Maheshwari and others. Even from the avermentsand the allegations in the F.I.R., it cannot be said that there is any primafacie case made out against the appellants for the offences under Sections406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The main allegations are againstother co-accused. Therefore, to continue the criminal proceedings againstthe appellants would be an abuse of process of law and the Court andunnecessary harassment to the appellants, who seem to be the purchasersof the property on payment of sale consideration. In the above facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have exercised itspowers and discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ought to havequashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The criminal proceedingsarising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 for the offences under Sections406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapurincluding the charge sheet are hereby quashed and set aside in so far asthe appellants herein – Smt. Rekha Jain and Smt. Minakshi Jain areconcerned.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H