# Chandrabhan Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-29
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 42306 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrabhan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50877
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 173(2) & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419 & 420 - -
the Court finds that - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the charge-sheet, summoning order as
well entire criminal proceedings - offence of
Cheating arising from two sale deeds involving
the same parcel of land - Complaint - FIR -
investigation - Charge-sheet - cognizance order
- plea taken by the applicant that, neither the
applicant is the beneficiary of the transaction in
any manner nor he signed the instrument as
witness and his role was limited to witnessing
an agreement to sell - court finds that - (i)
though charge-sheet has been filed but the
same is yet to be considered by the trial court,
as concededly, the charges have not been
framed against the accused person, - (ii)
applicant's prior knowledge of the land's sale
and his role in identifying the vendor in the
second transaction distinguish his case from other
witnesses and justify the continuation of proceedings
- consequently, the Court declines to exercise its
inherent powers to quash the impugned proceedings,
holding that the allegations, if taken at face value, do
make out a prima facie case against the applicant -
application fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Para - 11, 12)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

2 All. Chandrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1269

21. With cumulative effect of the
above discussion and the analysis of the
Court here-in-above, the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with Complaint
Case No.31 of 2013, under Sections 43/44
of Water Pollution (Prevention and Control
) Act, 1974, pending in the court of Special
Judicial Magistrate, Pollution, Lucknow is,
hereby, quashed against the applicants.

21. The applications are, accordingly,
allowed.

22. A copy of this order be certified to
the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1269
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 42306 of 2023

Chandrabhan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kaushlendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 173(2) & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419 & 420 - -
the Court finds that - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the charge-sheet, summoning order as
well entire criminal proceedings - offence of
Cheating arising from two sale deeds involving
the same parcel of land - Complaint - FIR -
investigation - Charge-sheet - cognizance order
- plea taken by the applicant that, neither the
applicant is the beneficiary of the transaction in
any manner nor he signed the instrument as
witness and his role was limited to witnessing
an agreement to sell - court finds that - (i)
though charge-sheet has been filed but the
same is yet to be considered by the trial court,
as concededly, the charges have not been
framed against the accused person, - (ii)
applicant's prior knowledge of the land's sale
and his role in identifying the vendor in the
second transaction distinguish his case from other
witnesses and justify the continuation of proceedings
- consequently, the Court declines to exercise its
inherent powers to quash the impugned proceedings,
holding that the allegations, if taken at face value, do
make out a prima facie case against the applicant -
application fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Para - 11, 12)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & ors. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors., reported in 1997 (4) R.C.R.
(Criminal), 761

2. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.,
reported in 1991 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal), 383.

3. Dharmatma Singh Vs Harminder Singh & ors.
reported as 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicant being accused has
approached this Court through this application
under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated
13.01.2022, filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
as well as the cognizance/ summoning order
dated 20.4.2023 (both Annexure No.6) passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
and the proceedings arising in Case Crime
No.0718 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420
I.P.C., Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant
Kabir Nagar.

2. The above F.I.R. (Annexre No.1)
was registered on the basis of complaint
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given by Smt. Rekha Sharma, wherein it is
alleged that she is the resident of
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar and
accused persons, namely, Ramnarain @
Ramnarainpur son of Indal, Chandrabhan
Singh, son of Gopal Singh, who are
engaged in the business of property
dealing, in connivance with each other had
sold 0.134 hect. land comprised in gata
nos.701, 702, 723, 736 through sale deed
dated 03.06.2017 executed in favour of
Jaiprakash
Mishra,
wherein
accused
Chandrabhan Singh is the witness to the
sale deed. As per allegations, Chandrabhan
Singh in a fictitious way got the sale deed
of the land executed in favour of the
complainant. On these broad allegations,
the F.I.R. was registered for alleged
commission
of
offence
of
cheating
punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

3. After registration of the case, the
investigation in subject F.I.R. was carried
out and upon completion of the same the
impugned charge sheet dated 13.01.2022
was
submitted
before
the
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
under
Section
173(2) Cr.P.C., whereupon vide order dated
20.04.2023 cognizance order was passed.
Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicant has argued that the
case of the prosecution is not maintainable
against Chandrabhan Singh, the applicant,
who is not involved in execution of the sale
deed
dated
22.11.2018,
which
was
executed by accused Ramnarain in favour
of complainant-Reeta Sharma. He submits
that neither the applicant is the beneficiary
of this transaction in any manner nor he
signed the instrument as witness. He
submits that the land, if any, which is
subject matter of the case was owned by
Ramnarain and both the sale deeds were
executed by him, whereas the applicant was
only a witness to the first sale deed
executed on 03.06.2017, which has never
been questioned in any manner, much less
by the complainant or the vendee-Jai
Prakash.

5. Learned counsel has further argued
that prior to the execution of the sale deed
dated 22.11.2018, the vendor had executed
an agreement to sell dated 13.11.2018,
wherein the agreed sale consideration was
fixed as Rs.3.75 lacs, and that too with
Santosh Kumar Sharma, husband of the
complainant, so, learned counsel while
drawing attention of the Court to the
agreement to sell dated 13.11.2018 has
argued that the contents of this document
are not part of the F.I.R., therefore, case of
the applicant is distinguishable from the
other co-accused. He submits that on these
grounds, the interference of this Court is
warranted by exercise of inherent powers
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.,
as
his
prosecution is nothing, but an abuse of
process of law.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel
for the applicant and considering his
submission this Court finds that the entire
case of the prosecution is based upon the
documentary evidence and though the
charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
has been filed, but the same is yet to be
considered by the trial court, as concededly,
the charges have not been framed against
the accused persons.

7. In Dharmatma Singh vs.
Harminder Singh & Ors. reported as
2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that if a party
can avail alternative remedy according to
the provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent
2 All. Chandrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1271
powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be
exercised. The relevant observations read
as under :

"13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
saves the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under
the Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. It has been held by this Court in
R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960
SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds
to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of
the High Court to make such orders as may
be necessary to give effect to any order
under the Code or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice and such inherent power
cannot be exercised in regard to matters
specifically covered by the other provisions
of the Code and therefore where the
Magistrate has not applied his mind under
Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of
the reports and passed order, the High
Court ought not to consider a request for
quashing the proceedings. In the case of R.
P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi
lodged a First Information Report against
R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his
mother-in-law had committed offences
under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur moved
the Punjab High Court under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing the proceedings initiated by the
First Information Report. When the petition
of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High
Court, the police report was submitted
under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High
Court held that no case had been made out
for quashing the proceedings under Section
561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P.
Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special
Leave to this Court and this Court
dismissed the appeal for inter alia the
following reasons:

"
In the
present
case
the
magistrate before whom the police report
has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has
yet not applied his mind to the merits of the
said report and it may be assumed in
favour of the appellant that his request for
the quashing of the proceedings is not at
the present stage covered by any specific
provision of the Code. It is well established
that the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court
can
be
exercised
to
quash
proceedings in a proper case either to
prevent the abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings
instituted against an accused person must
be tried under the provisions of the Code,
and the High Court would be reluctant to
interfere with the said proceedings at an
interlocutory stage..."

As we have found in the present
case that learned Magistrate had not
applied his mind to the merits of the reports
filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., we are of
the considered opinion that the exercise of
power by the High Court under Section
482, Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage
and was not warranted in the facts of this
case."

8. At this stage, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that the inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can also
be exercised in a case, if, the criminal
proceedings
against
the
accused
are
attended with malafide intentions and the
case of the applicant would also fall within
the ambit of such cases where the exercise
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
justified.
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. At this juncture, this Court deems it
appropriate to refer the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and others, reported in 1991 (1) R.C.R.
(Criminal), 383 wherein the Apex Court
while analyzing the exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court vested through
Section 482 Cr.P.C., laid down the
following guidelines :

"The following categories of
cases can be stated by way of illustration
wherein the extraordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised by
the High Court either to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
Police Officer without an order of
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a\criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing\ efficacious redress for the
grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with malafide and/or
where the
proceeding
is
maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to
the effect that the power of quashing a
criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the
court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that
the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or
caprice."

10. The above view was again
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2 All. Chandrabhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1273
the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.,
reported in 1997 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal),
761 and in the said case, Hon'ble Supreme
Court while examining the powers of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. laid
down as under :

"It is settled that High Court can
exercise its power of judicial review in
criminal matters. In State of Haryana and
others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992
Supp (1) ACC, 335, this court examined the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of
the Constitution and also the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code
which it said could be exercised by the
High Court either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. While laying down
certain guidelines where the court will
exercise
jurisdiction
under
these
provisions, it was also stated that these
guidelines could not be inflexible or laying
rigid formulae to the followed by the facts
and circumstances of each case but with the
sole purpose to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. One of such guideline is
where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or
make
out
a
case
against
the
accused......."

11. Now, while testing the
applicant's case and considering the
argument raised by learned counsel
for
the
applicant
that
since
Chandrabhan Singh is not involved in
the
subsequent
transaction
dated
22.11.2018, therefore, he can not be
accused of any offence for causing
wrongful loss to the complainant,
Reeta Sharma, much less in the
absence of any wrongful gain by him,
the
prosecution
against
him,
is
without any basis, this Court finds
that as per prosecution, the applicant
was a witness to the first sale deed
03.06.2017, and the land sold by
Ramnarain through both the sale deeds
is the same, therefore, once the
applicant was aware that Ramnarain
has
already
sold
the
land
to
Jaiprakash, therefore, it was very
much in his knowledge that the land
does not belong to Ramnarain for
entering into subsequent transaction.

12. Admittedly, in the agreement
to sell dated 13.11.2018, the applicant
is signatory as witness and at that
stage
he
identified
the
vendor
Ramnarain to Santosh Kumar Sharma,
husband of the complainant-Reeta
Sharma. Notably, Shailendra another
witness to agreement to sell like the
applicant is not made accused as he
was not a witness to the earlier sale
deed dated 03.06.2017, therefore, the
argument of learned counsel for the
applicant that his case is at par with
Shailendra is misconceived, as his
case stands on different footings. In
view
of
this,
it
can
be
safely
concluded
that
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case do not
make out a case for exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., as it is not a case, where if,
the allegations are taken to be true on
its face value, no case against the
applicant-accused is made out. Thus,
without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, this Court is not
inclined to exercise the inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Resultantly the application fails
and is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1274
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 45056 of 2023

Akshay & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ajatshatru Pandey

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 155(2), 173(2), 173(8) &
482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
307, 323 & 506 - Application u/s 482 -
challenging the summoning order - NCR -
investigation - applicant arguing that the
investigation into Case Crime (initially NCR) was
invalid due to non-compliance with Section
155(2) Cr.P.C. when Section 307 I.P.C. was
added - Court finds that - the accused had not
raised this issue at the appropriate time, and
the
Magistrate
had
already
permitted
investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.
curing any procedural irregularity - held -
the summoning order under Section 307
I.P.C. is valid and based upon correct
appreciation of law and conflicting police
reports must be judicially examined -
finding
no
merits
in
the
application,
therefore
Application
is
accordingly,
dismissed.
(Para - 6, 8)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -
1. Vinay Tyagi Vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & ors.,
2013 (5) SCC 762.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicants being accused have
approached
this
Court
through
this
application under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure to challenge the order
dated 21.11.2023 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,
Mathura in Case No. 7075 of 2019, titled
State Vs. Akshay Bhardwaj and another,
arising out of Case Crime No. 1297 of
2017, under Sections 307, 323, 506 I.P.C.,
Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura,
summoning them in relation to the added
offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
submits that initially NCR No. 94/2017
dated 28.9.2017 under Sections 323, 506
I.P.C. was registered against the accused at
Police Station Kotwali, Chowki Krishna
Nagar,
Mathura
at
the
instance
of
complainant namely, Prem Singh, and
subsequently, during the pendency of the
investigation, the offence punishable under
Section
307
I.P.C.
was
added
on
18.12.2017.
According
to
him,
the
investigation
in
the
alleged
crime
commenced without the compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Section 155(2)
Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the opinion
given by the doctor relating to the injuries
suffered by the victim, a charge sheet
bearing No. 803 of 2018 dated 6.8.2018
was filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
against the applicants. He submits that
NCR Case No. 94 of 2017, after addition of
Section 307 I.P.C. was converted as Case
Crime No. 1297 of 2017.

3. Learned counsel for applicants has
further pointed out that on the basis of