# Awadhesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 230
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-24
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadhesh-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48748
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 482 - Charge-sheet -
Quashing of - FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC - FIR by a member of society
against the society itself leveling charge
of indulging in construction of flats on
Nazul land - Violation of lease deed, how
far constitute offence - Held, it is for the
St. Government to take action if there was
any violation/infraction of the lease deed
executed in favour of the Original Lessee
who sold the land in favour of the Housing
Society but for this fact the FIR could not
have been registered against the Society
or its Members on behalf of the opposite
party No. 3 who himself claims to be the
member of the Society - High Court
quashed
the
Charge-sheet
for
being
wholly untenable. (Para 36, 38 and 39)
Application allowed. (E-1)

## Text

230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commencement and completion of trial.
Section 465 Code of Criminal Procedure is
applicable to interlocutory orders such as
an order taking cognizance and summons
order as well. Therefore, even if the order
taking cognizance is irregular, it would not
vitiate the proceedings in view of Section
465 Code of Criminal Procedure;"

22. Therefore, as per Pradeep S. Wodeyar
(supra) even if there is an irregularity in
cognizance order then also on that ground
proceedings in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C.
cannot be vitiated.

23. Therefore, from the above discussion,
it is clear that although there is no illegality in
the cognizance order dated 20.03.2020 as
before taking cognizance court below perused
the case diary and other documents and chargesheet but even if there was an irregularity in the
cognizance order, then also on the basis of it
proceedings of the present case cannot be
quashed as order of taking cognizance are
interlocutory in nature and as per Section 465
Cr.P.C. proceedings on the basis of that
irregularity cannot be vitiated.

24. Therefore, from the above discussion,
I find no merit in the present application.

25. Accordingly, the present application is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 230
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4432 of 2021, 4433 of
2021 & 4441 of 2021

Awadhesh Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Satya Prakash, Abhishek Vishwakarma,
Ravi Singh, Shikhar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Praveen Tripathi, Sushil Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 482 - Charge-sheet -
Quashing of - FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC - FIR by a member of society
against the society itself leveling charge
of indulging in construction of flats on
Nazul land - Violation of lease deed, how
far constitute offence - Held, it is for the
St. Government to take action if there was
any violation/infraction of the lease deed
executed in favour of the Original Lessee
who sold the land in favour of the Housing
Society but for this fact the FIR could not
have been registered against the Society
or its Members on behalf of the opposite
party No. 3 who himself claims to be the
member of the Society - High Court
quashed
the
Charge-sheet
for
being
wholly untenable. (Para 36, 38 and 39)
Application allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Present petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 24.09.2021 in FIR
No.0085 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B IPC registered at Police
Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow as
well as summoning order/cognizance order
dated 05.10.2021 passed by leaned Special
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI
AP), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.NIL
and entire proceedings of FIR No.0085 of
2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B IPC, Police Station Wazirganj,
District Lucknow.
8 All. Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
231

2. The Bank of India Karamchari
Sahkari
Avas
Samiti
Ltd.,
Lucknow
(hereinafter referred to as "Society") was
constituted and registered on 24.05.1983.
This
Society
constituted
by
serving
employees of the Bank of India. The object
of the Society is to provide affordable
houses to the employees of the Bank of
India. It is said that only employees of the
Bank of India, who applied for membership
of the Society, were enrolled as members
on payment of membership fee. All
members were issued Share Certificates.
By laws of the Society do not permit
"Nominal Membership".

3. The Society purchased land on
02.08.1985. In pursuance to the demand
notice, the petitioners and other members
paid their contribution. Society constructed
20 Flats over the land purchased by it on
02.08.1985. These Flats were allotted to its
members on 01.04.1990. Each member
paid cost of a Flat of Rs.1.41 Lakh.

4. It is further stated that membership
of the Society was restricted to employees
of the Bank of India. The petitioners started
living in their respective Flats after their
allotment since 1990. However, sale deeds
of the Flats allotted to the petitioners were
executed by then Secretary of the Society
on 04.05.2007.

5. One of the 20 Flats, Flat No.D-1
(initially 2/1) was allotted by the Society to
one of its founder member, Mr. Sudarsh
Awasthi. Mr. Kailash Nath Singh (Retd.
Deputy Superintendent of Police), opposite
party No.3 in petition No.4432 of 2021
started residing in the said flat as a licensee.
The complainant and his family members
have been occupying the said Flat for about
two decades. Mr. Sudarsh Awasthi had
given Flat on rent in the name of Mrs.
Maya Singh w/o Mr. Kailash Nath Singh
which is evident from the affidavit given by
Mr.
Sudarsh
Awasthi
for
electricity
connection in the name of Ms. Maya Singh.

6. The complainant, Mr. Kailash Nath
Singh approached the petitioners, Mr.
Awadhesh Pratap Singh (President), Mr.
Anil Kumar Agarwal (Vice President) and
Mr. Ajai Kumar Gupta (then Secretary),
who were office bearers of the Society, and
tried to pressurize them to register the Flat
No.D-1 in his name. Since the Flat No.D-1
was allotted to Mr. Sudarsh Awasthi, a
founder member, the Society refused to
accede to the request of Mr. Kailash Nath
Singh. Mr. Kailash Nath Singh was not
even eligible to be the member of the
Society as he was not an employee of the
Bank of India.

7. Mr. Kailash Nath Singh, (opposite
party No.3) approached U.P. Avas & Vikas
Parishad, Lucknow with a request for
direction to the Society to register Flat
No.D-1 in his name. Avas Vikas Parishad
did not grant any relief to him.

8. Mr. Kailash Nath Singh, thereafter,
approached U.P. Real Estate Regulatory
Authority (UP RERA). However, he could
not get any relief from UP RERA. He
failed to show proof of any payment and
membership details before the UP RERA in
the society.

9. The complainant, Kailash Nath
Singh, then approached District Consumer
Forum, Jaunpur, U.P. in November, 2020
and obtained an ex parte order dated
01.02.2021 within 3 months from its filing
directing the Society to register Flat No.D1 in his name within a period of one month
else the registration of Flat would be done
by the Forum through their own Agency.
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The District Consumer Forum also issued
non bailable warrant against the Secretary
of the Society on 31.05.2021 for non
compliance of the order dated 01.02.2021.
It is submitted that no cause of action even
partly arose within the jurisdiction of
District Forum Jaunpur and order passed by
the District Forum, Jaunpur is perverse and
void ab initio inasmuch as the District
Forum,
Jaunpur
had
no
territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
complaint.

10. The Society filed an appeal
against the said order before the State
Consumer Redressal Commission (State
Commission),
Lucknow
and
State
Commission has stayed the order of the
District Forum. The dispute is still pending
before the State Commission.

11. While the dispute is still at large
before the Consumer Forum/Commission,
Mr. Kailash Nath Singh lodged a complaint
in Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow
against
the
petitioners
alleging
that
allotment of the Flats to the petitioners
were made by the Society on 29.01.1986
whereas the land was purchased by the
Society on 28.06.1986. It was further
alleged that the sale-deed executed by the
Secretary of the Society in favour of the
petitioners on 04.05.2007 was on the basis
of fabricated and forged documents. On the
basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No.85 of
2021 came to be registered under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC dated
21.02.2021 against the petitioners. It is said
that the petitioners despite submitting
documentary proof to the police authorities
that the land was purchased on 02.08.1985,
demand cum provisional allotment was
made on 29.01.1986 and possession was
handed over in 1990, ignoring all these
facts and documents, the FIR in question
came to be registered against the petitioners
as the complainant is an ex-police officer.

12. The petitioners filed Writ Petition
No.19773 (MB) of 2021, 19795 (MB) of
2021 and 19799(MB) of 2021 for quashing
of the FIR. This Court vide interim order
dated 07.09.2021 while issuing notice,
stayed arrest of the petitioners and directed
the respondents to file their affidavits.

13. State authorities did not file any
affidavit in the said writ petitions, and
hurriedly filed impugned charge-sheet.
Though in the FIR there was no allegation
that the Secretary of the Society was not
empowered/authorized to execute sale-deed
dated
04.05.2007
in
favour
of
the
petitioners, but in the charge-sheet this
allegation was also leveled. It is further
said that the petitioners were never
questioned/interrogated and no statement of
the petitioners was ever taken by the
Investigating Officer before filing the
charge-sheet. It is submitted that lodging of
FIR, preparing and filing charge-sheet
hurriedly by the police and further
proceedings in pursuance of the filing of
the charge-sheet are nothing but a complete
abuse of the process of the Court, which
smacks mala fide.

14. Mr. Satya Prakash, learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the Society was dissolved by the
Housing Commissioner in the year 1999.
However, on an appeal made by the
members in 2006, the Society was
reinstated by the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 18.04.2006. In the Order dated
18.04.2006, it was said that even after
handing over the possession of the Flats to
its members in the year 1990 after
receiving full payment, sale-deeds were not
executed in favour of the most of the
8 All. Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
233
allottees. Taking cognizance of the order of
the appellate authority, Assistant Housing
Commissioner,
appointed
Mr.
L.P.
Dwivedi as Administrator of the Society
vide order dated 27.05.2006. As per the
power vested under Section 29(5) of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the
Administrator
appointed
Ajay
Kumar
Gupta (one of the petitioners) as Secretary
of the Society vide order dated 10.08.2006,
and issued written directions to the
Secretary to execute sale deeds vide his
letter dated 18.06.2006 in favour of the
allottees of the Flats, whose sale deed could
not be executed earlier.

15. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta was never
removed from the post of Secretary by the
Administrator,
and
he
continued
to
discharge his assigned duties including
execution of sale-deeds. Mr. Ajay Kumar
Gupta had no role in allotment of the Flats
to members. He merely executed saledeeds in favour of allottees on behalf of the
Society, who had paid full amount to the
Society way back in 1990. He acted on the
written direction of the Administrator as
pointed out earlier.

16. Mr. Satya Prakash, learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that
allegation
made
by
the
complainant/opposite
party
No.3
that
elections of Managing Committee of the
Society were due when sale deeds were
executed on 04.05.2007 is wholly incorrect.
Process of
conducting elections was
initiated by the competent authority on
20.06.2007 whereas the sale-deeds were
executed
on
04.05.2007,
and
the
complainant had no business/locus in
respect of the execution of the sale deed
being a stranger. The petitioners were
officers/employees of the Bank of India,
and they were founder members of the
Society from its very inception. They had
paid full cost of the Flats allotted to them
by taking loans from the Bank. The Bank
sanctioned loan after verifying all the
details of the project and at no point of time
raised any objection.

17. It has been further submitted that
altogether 5 sale deeds were executed by
the Secretary after his appointment on
10.06.2006
till
20.06.2007.
The
complainant
misusing
his
reach
and
approach in police department being
Former Deputy Superintendent of Police
got the FIR in question registered and
charge-sheet filed against the petitioners
without there being an iota of evidence
against the petitioners for commission of
the offence for which charge-sheet has
been filed.

18. The complainant wanted to get the
sale-deed registered in his favour for Flat
No. D-1, which was allotted to Mr. Sudarsh
Awasthi, a founder Member of the Society.
When office bearers of the Society refused
and did not buzz under the pressure put on
by the complainant/opposite party No.3, he
has resorted to criminal proceedings. The
impugned proceedings are nothing but a
sheer abuse of the process of the Court and
law and a malicious and capricious
prosecution of the petitioners for ulterior
purposes.

19. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta was never
removed from the post of Secretary by the
Administrator
and
he
continued
to
discharge the assigned duties including the
execution of the sale deeds. He had no role
in allotment of flats to the members. He
merely executed sale deeds in favour of
allottees who had paid full amount to the
Society way back in the year 1990 as per
the written orders of the Administrator. It is
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also submitted that total 5 sale-deeds were
executed
by
the
Secretary
since
appointment till 20.06.2007. However,
charge-sheet has been filed only against
two allotees, who are the petitioners herein
and the Secretary.

20. It is important to note here that all
three petitioners against whom chargesheet has been filed are office bearers of
the Society. Three other allotees in whose
favour sale-deeds were executed in the
same fashion as in respect of the two
petitioners have not been implicated. It has
been submitted that the FIR, charge-sheet
and the impugned proceedings are only to
put undue pressure on the office bearers of
the Society to execute the sale deed of the
flats belonging to Mr. Sudarsh Awasthi in
favour of the complainant, opposite party
No.3 in an illegal manner. The allegations
against the petitioners, Mr. Awadhesh
Pratap Singh, and Anil Kumar Agarwal do
not hold ground as both of them had made
full payment before 1990 and they were
living in the same Flats since then. Only
sale-deeds have been executed in their
favour in the year 2006.

21. It has been further submitted that
neither the Society nor any member of the
Society has ever raised question regarding
ownership or sale-deeds in favour of the
petitioners, Awadesh Pratap Singh and Anil
Kumar Agarwal, and the complainant
himself never challenged the said saledeeds before any court of law for their
cancellations. In view thereof, it has been
submitted that this court in order to prevent
misuse of the process of the Court and in
the interest of justice may quash the
impugned proceedings.

22. On the other hand, Mr. Sushil
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
for opposite party No.3 has submitted that
Nazul land in Khasra Plot No.58 and 58A,
area 1,19,351 sq ft situated at Mohalla
Batlerganj, Ram Mohan Rai Ward, Prag
Narayan Road, near Bhainsa Kund was
given by the State Government on lease to
Karan Trehan, Kishore Trehan and their
family. The said lease was registered vide
registration dated 07.10.1947 in Sub
Registrar Office, Lucknow for a period of
90 years subject to two renewals in interval
of 30 years each.

23.

A
Housing
Society
was
established in the name of Bank of India
Employees Cooperative Housing Society,
which was registered in the office of
Registrar/Housing
Commissioner
Avas
Vikas. In 1985, Uma Builder Company,
Lucknow was established by Mr. Sudarsh
Awasthi.
This
Company
started
construction on behalf of the Society. Mr.
Sudarsh Awasthi was later on dismissed
/terminated from service in the year 1999
by Bank of India.

24. Agreement to sell was entered
into between the Bank of India Employees
Housing Society and Original Lessee of the
land in Plot Nos.58 and 58A and,
thereafter, sale-deed was executed on
28.06.1986. It is stated that vide Resolution
dated 01.09.1988 by-laws of the Society
were amended to have more members other
than the bank employees to raise funds for
construction of the Flats.

25. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the opposite party No.3 has
submitted that ownership of the land of
Khasra Plot Nos.58 and 58A is of the State
Government as it is a Nazul land and the
sale deed dated 28.06.1986 by the original
lessee in favour of the Society was an
illegal act and would not confer any right in
8 All. Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
235
favour of the Society. It has been further
submitted that the Society was dissolved
and the registration was cancelled on
07.10.1999. It is the appellate authority
which vide order dated 18.04.2006 restored
the Society's registration, and thereafter Mr.
L.P. Dwivedi, an Officer of the Cooperative Department was appointed as
Administrator of the Society vide order
dated 27.05.2006 by the Assistant Registrar
for the purposes of holding elections of the
Society.

26. Mr. L.P. Dwivedi joined on
30.05.2006
as
Administrator,
and
thereafter, he held a meeting on 09.06.2006
and proposed to appoint Mr. Ajay Kumar
Gupta, as acting Secretary of the society.
He submits that appointment of Mr. Ajay
Kumar Gupta, as acting Secretary of the
Housing Society was required to be
approved by the Registrar under Sections
121, 122, 122A of the Cooperative
Societies Act.

27. It has, therefore, been submitted
that since Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta's
appointment was never approved by the
Registrar, his appointment as Secretary was
void and non-est, and any act done by him
would be a nullity in the eyes of law.

28. It has been further submitted that
Mr. L.P. Dwivedi was removed on
18.11.2006,
and,
thereafter
a
three
members Committee was constituted on
20.06.2007 to look after the work of the
society. Thus, there was no Administrator
between 18.11.2006 and 20.06.2007. It has,
therefore,
been
submitted
that
when
Administrator himself was removed, and
no one was there till 3 members Committee
was constituted, sale deeds executed by Mr.
Ajay Kumar Gupta on 04.05.2007 in favour
of the petitioners, Awadhesh Pratap Singh
and Anil Kumar Agarwal amounts to a
fraudulent act and against the mandate of
the Administrator, who was appointed only
with a limited mandate to get the election
of the Society conducted.

29. It has been further submitted that
once the Administrator was removed on
17.11.2006, no authority remained vested
in the acting Secretary, Mr. Ajay Kumar
Gupta to execute the sale-deeds on
04.05.2007. He submits that the petitioners
connived with each other and committed
offences for which charge sheet has been
filed against them.

30. It has been further submitted that
after Mr. L.P. Dwivedi was removed as
Administrator, one Mukesh Dixit was
appointed as Administrator but he did not
join,
and
thereafter,
a
3
Member
Committee was constituted vide order
dated 20.06.2007 by Joint Registrar/Joint
Commissioner, Avas for purposes of
holding elections and elections were held
on 03.11.2017.

31. Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing for opposite party No.3
has further submitted that entire action of
the Society on the basis of the sale-deed of
the Nazul land is a nullity in the eyes of the
law. The Society could not become the
owner or could not have acquired any right
over the land because Nazul land cannot be
transferred by sale to a third party.

32. It has been further submitted that
Awadhesh Pratap Singh, one of the
petitioners herein appointed his brother,
U.P. Singh as Secretary after Ajay Gupta.
Mr. U.P. Singh sold the flat allotted to Mr.
Sudarsh Awasthi to one Ayush Tripathi on
13.10.2020. It has been submitted that the
petitioners, who are office bearers of the
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Society, could not produce balance sheet,
accounts of the Society and allegation is
that office bearers of the Society had
embezzled large amount of the Society. He
has further submitted that the Investigating
Officer has collected sufficient evidence
against the petitioners for commission of
offences by them, and the charge-sheet has
been accordingly filed. This Court is not
required to exercise its discretion under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the
impugned proceedings.

33. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for opposite party
No.3.

34. Opposite party No.3 is a retired
Deputy
Superintendent
of
Police
and
belonged to U.P. Police. He was not an
employee of Bank of India. Bank of India
employees Cooperative Housing Society was
established for providing affordable houses to
the officers/employees of the Bank of India
who became the members of the Society.

35. There are primarily three allegations
in the FIR: (i) that the land of Kahsra Plots
No.58 and 58A being Nazul land could not
have been transferred by the original lessee in
favour of the Society. (ii) that sale-deeds
dated 04.05.2007 executed by Ajay Kumar
Gupta in favour of the petitioners, Mr.
Awadhesh Pratap Singh, and Anil Kumar
Agarwal were without any authority and it
was a fraud as Ajay Kumar Gupta, Secretary
did not have any authority to execute the sale
deeds; and (iii) that in the sale deed allotment
date has been mentioned as 29.01.1986
whereas the land was purchased only on
28.06.1986 and on 29.01.1986 neither land
was in possession of the Society not any flat
was constructed and thus the petitioners had
forged and fabricated the documents.

36. This Court fails to understand that
how for these allegations, FIR in question
came to be registered. The complainant
himself claims to be the Member of the
Society, however, he could not provide any
proof of his Membership or making payment
of
contribution
towards
purchase
and
construction of the Flats, but at the same time
he is alleging that the land could not have
been sold by the Original Lessee in favour of
the Society and the construction of flats by
the society on Nazul land, their allotment and
registration in favour of the allottees are
illegal and amounts to crime.

37. I find that the stand of the
complainant
somewhat
confusing
and
untenable. If he claims to be the member of
the Society and the Society had indulged in
criminal activity by purchasing the Nazul
land, then he being member of the Society is
also an accused for the said illegal and
offending act done by the Society.

38. This Court is of the considered view
that it is for the State Government to take
action if there was any violation/infraction of
the lease deed executed in favour of the
Original Lessee who sold the land in favour
of the Housing Society but for this fact the
FIR could not have been registered against
the Society or its Members on behalf of the
opposite party No.3 who himself claims to be
the member of the Society.

39. This Court finds that the chargesheet filed for this allegation is wholly
untenable and deserves to be quashed.

40. In respect of the second
allegation, it is worthwhile to note that the
land
was
purchased
on
02.08.1985.
Demand cum provisional allotment was
made on 29.01.1986, and final possession
of the Flats was given in 1990. Therefore,
8 All. Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
237
there is no substance in the allegation that
the land was purchased by the Society on
28.06.1986 and, therefore, allotment date in
the sale-deeds as on 29.01.1986 was a fraud
and this allegation does not hold ground.
Even if it is considered that wrong
allotment date was mentioned in the sale
deeds of the two petitioners, the offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 would
not get attracted against the petitioners.

41. Under Section 47 of the
Registration Act, 1908 it is provided that a
registered document shall operate from the
time which it would have commenced to
operate if no registration thereof had been
required or made, and not from the time of
its registration. If the allotment was made
on 29.01.1986 and the possession was
handed over in 1990, this Court finds no
substance in the allegations that this would
amount to a fraud/forgery for the allegation
that allotment date was mentioned in the
sale deed as 29.01.1986.

42. Mr. L.P. Dwivedi, who was
appointed as Administrator in exercise of
powers under Section 29(5) of the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 appointed
Ajay Kumar Gupta (one of the petitioners)
as Secretary of the Society vide order dated
10.08.2006,
and
the
copy
of
the
appointment order was also endorsed to
U.P. Awas and Vikas Parishad, Lucknow.
Members of the Society, who were allotted
Flats and were living since 1990 after
paying full cost, brought it to the notice of
the Administrator that several sale deeds
had not been executed by the Society in
favour of the allottees. The Administrator
issued written directions to the Secretary to
execute the sale-deed vide his letter dated
18.06.2006. The Secretary, Ajay Kumar
Gupta (one of the petitioner) thereafter
executed sale-deeds in favour of the
members of the Society who were allotted
the flats and living since 1990. Though new
Administrator Mr. Mukesh Dixit was
appointed but he never took over charge as
Administrator and as such Mr. L.P.
Dwivedi continued as Administrator and
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta was never removed
as Secretary by the Administrator and he
continued to discharge his assigned duties
including execution of the sale-deeds. It is
not the case of opposite party No.3 that Mr.
Ajay Kumar Gupta executed the sale-deed
to any person who was not the member of
the Society or to a member who had not
paid the contribution.

43. This Court fails to understand that
what offence can be said to have been
committed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta in
executing the sale-deed in favour of two
petitioners on 04.05.2007 inasmuch as till
the said date he was functioning as
Secretary and nobody had any objection to
his appointment as Secretary. No one
challenged
his
appointment
and
continuation as Secretary of the Society.
No member of the Society has made any
grievance in this respect. It is also relevant
to mention here that sale-deeds were
executed on 04.05.2007 but the FIR in
question came to be registered in 2021 i.e.
after 14 years from the date of alleged
illegal sale-deeds by Mr. Ajay Kumar
Gupta in favour of the petitioners. The
complainant is a stranger to the acts of the
society and its members and no criminal
proceedings are maintainable on his behest.

44. This Court having considered the
material brought on record and also taking
into account the fact that the dispute in
respect of possession and execution of the
sale-deed in respect of Flat No.D-1 allotted
to Mr. Sudarsh Awasthi in favour of
opposite party No.3 has been given a cloak
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of criminal proceedings to put undue
pressure on the petitioners and the Society.
This is nothing but a gross abuse of the
process of the Court. This Court is of the
considered view that continuance of the
proceedings would be wholly unjustified
and liable to be quashed. The Investigating
Officer has filed the charge-sheet without
there being any adequate evidence to
support the allegations for offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.

45. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the petitions are allowed and
impugned proceedings of charge-sheet
dated 24.09.2021 in FIR No.0085 of 2021
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B
IPC registered at Police Station Wazirganj,
District Lucknow as well as summoning
order/cognizance order dated 05.10.2021
passed by leaned Special Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (CBI AP), Lucknow in
Criminal
Case
No.NIL
and
entire
proceedings of FIR No.0085 of 2021 under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC,
Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow
are hereby quashed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 238
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4928 of 2022

Mansur Ali ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 482 - Order of
treating application u/s 156(3) as the
complaint case - Quashing of - Held, a
Magistrate,
while
entertaining
an
application filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. can reject or treat the same to be a
complaint - Impugned order treating the
application filed u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a
complaint, cannot be said to be illegal.
(Para 10 and 13)
Application disposed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of U.P. & anr. 2014 (2)
SCC 1
2. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P.; 2008 CriLJ 452.
3. Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs St. of Guj.;
(2015) 6 SCC 439
4. M/s. Cucusan Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. (Delhi
Admn.); 1991 Cr.LJ 683
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. The instant application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
16.10.2020 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gonda in Criminal Misc. Case
No.1890/2020, Yusuf Ali vs. Inayat Ali and
others in application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts are that the applicant
moved an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of
the case which was heard and learned
Magistrate vide order dated 16.10.2020
treated the same as complaint case and